Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

House of Commons, 3 June 1997.

REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 140, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens' No. 4, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'persons' and insert 'citizens of the United Kingdom'. No. 120, in page 1, line 11, at end insert 'were born in Scotland or who have a parent or grand-parent of Scottish birth and who would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election if they were resident in Scotland and the persons who'. No. 148, in page 1, line 11, at end insert 'are included in a central register to be established in accordance with Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] or who'. No. 82, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'general'. No. 238, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'local government' and insert 'parliamentary'. No. 5, in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 83, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'and the citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Scotland.'. No. 149, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'. No. 225, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'who have been registered as local government electors in any Scottish local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'. No. 236, in page 1, line 13, at end insert 'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland in the previous twenty years'. No. 121, in page 1, line 13, at end insert— '() Notwithstanding subsection (3) above, an Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are members of the forces (as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) or spouses of such members, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made— (a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in a referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in Scotland, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and (b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (1) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post.'. No. 138, in page 1, leave out from beginning of line 14 to end of line 3 on page 2. No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'for Scotland'. No. 213, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 151, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'local government area' and insert 'parliamentary constituency.' No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Scotland', and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 152, in page 1, line 17, at end insert 'shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Scotland)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'. No. 13, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 191, in page 2, line 3, at end add 'and for each Parliamentary constituency publicly at the end of each count.'. No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 141, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'the persons' and insert 'those United Kingdom citizens' No. 17, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'persons' and insert 'citizens of the United Kingdom'. No. 160, in page 2, line 10, at end insert 'are included in a central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] or who'. No. 18, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to end of line 12 and insert 'a local government election in any electoral area in the United Kingdom'. No. 239, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'at' to 'in' in line 12 and insert 'a parliamentary election'. No. 84, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'an election for a county council or county borough council' and insert 'a general election'. No. 217, in page 2, line 12, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 85, in page 2, line 12, at end insert 'and those citizens of the United Kingdom who would be entitled to vote in a general election in any electoral area of the United Kingdom, who were born in Wales.'. No. 161, in page 2, line 12, at end insert 'except that citizens of the European Union who are not also British citizens shall not be entitled to vote.'. No. 226, in page 2, line 12, at end insert 'who have been registered as local government electors on any Welsh local government register for the past five years or since they were 18, whichever be the shorter period'. No. 237, in page 2, line 12, at end insert 'or have been entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Wales in the previous twenty years'. No. 139, in page 2, leave out lines 13 to 25. No. 218, in page 2, line 14, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 21, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'county or county borough in Wales' and insert 'local government area in the United Kingdom'. No. 165, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'county or county borough' and insert 'parliamentary constituency'. No. 219, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 164, in page 2, line 16, at end insert 'and shall himself act as Counting Officer for electors registered in the central register established under Schedule [Central Register of electors for referendums (Wales)] and shall also set up and maintain that register.'. No. 25, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. No. 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out 'county or county borough in Wales' and insert 'local government area in the United Kingdom'. New clause 11—Counting— '—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chief Counting Officer for the United Kingdom. (2) The Chief Counting Officer shall appoint a Counting Officer for each local government area in the United Kingdom. (3) Each Counting Officer shall— (a) conduct the counting of votes in the area for which he is appointed in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Counting Officer, and (b) certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and the number of votes cast for each proposition. (4) The Chief Counting Officer shall certify the total of— (a) the ballot papers counted, and (b) the votes cast for each proposition for the whole of the United Kingdom.' Amendment No. 132, in schedule 1, page 4, line 2, leave out 'IN SCOTLAND'. Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 5, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'Scotland' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. Amendment No. 133, in schedule 2, page 5, line 2, leave out 'IN WALES'. Amendment No. 36, in page 5, line 3, leave out 'Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'. New schedule 2—Central register of electors for referendums (Scotland)— A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum. Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are: (i) persons who are resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Scotland by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts; (ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Scotland; (iii) persons born in Scotland but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom; (iv) persons not born in Scotland but who have lived in Scotland for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently; (v) persons owning residential property in Scotland but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Scotland to live permanently.'. New schedule 3—Central register of electors for referendums (Wales)— A central register of electors shall be set up and maintained for electors only eligible to vote in the referendums. It shall be open to any person in the following categories to be included in that register up to thirty days before the date of any referendum. Such persons may vote by post, by proxy or in person at polling stations provided specifically for the purpose in such centres as the counting officers deem necessary. Persons eligible to be included on the central register are: (i) persons who are resident in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland but who could claim a vote in Wales by reason of their previous residence there were they living outside the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts; (ii) persons who, under the provisions of the Immigration Acts could claim British citizenship by descent where that claim derives from a father or mother whose place of birth, naturalisation or residence is in Wales; (iii) persons born in Wales but living elsewhere in the United Kingdom; (iv) persons not born in Wales but who have lived in Wales for more than ten years and now live elsewhere in the United Kingdom and who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently; (v) persons owning residential property in Wales but not being on a local government electoral register who sign an affidavit that it is their firm intention to return to Wales to live permanently.'. Amendment No. 37, in title, line 1, leave out 'in Scotland'. Amendment No. 38, in line 3, leave out 'in Wales'.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

We are debating a first-class but a third-rate constitutional Bill which is being treated in an unprecedented manner; and we have been debating not so much a guillotine motion as a lethal injection. The Leader of the House said that it was not a constitutional Bill—a statement which should in itself disqualify her from that office. The Bill is a constitutional Bill—a major constitutional Bill. Moreover, it includes tax-varying powers that go to the very heart of the sovereignty and integrity of Parliament. As hon. Members have already said, debate on previous constitutional Bills has lasted for as long as 30 days, whereas we will be given as few as one or two days to debate this measure. We are debating a Bill which has been conceived in a cuckoo's nest of a Cabinet that is controlled by a Scots cabal of Ministers of the Crown, representing the biggest takeover of the United Kingdom since the Union, in 1603, of the Crowns of Scotland and England. A quarter of all Ministers are Scots—19 of the 89 Ministers are Scots. I mentioned a Scots cabal, and I should explain that I define "cabal" as something representing conceit, arrogance, bombast, aggression and lies. The plain fact is that the Bill represents the views that were expressed by the Prime Minister in the general election campaign and in the Labour party manifesto. However, his euphoria will be dashed—as was that of the Stuarts, in 1649, when Charles I lost his head because of his folly and his arrogance. It is worth remembering that, in its title, the Bill is a successor to the 1979 devolution legislation, which led to the fall of the Callaghan Government. It has been well said that, eventually, they shall reap as they have sown. The Bill is a part of a policy that is inside out and upside down, with principles on the outside and precedents on the downside. It is an outrage that the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill precedes the White Paper and the devolution Bill itself, and it is a deceit to say that it stands on its own. Even in 1975, Harold Wilson insisted on a White Paper before introducing legislation on a European referendum. As I said to the Secretary of State for Scotland—although my remarks apply to Wales as much as to Scotland—on Second Reading, the Bill necessarily involves not so much the West Lothian question as the United Kingdom question. Referendums should not be confined to Scotland and Wales; they should encompass the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the Bill's tax-varying proposals, the electors of my constituency and all those of the United Kingdom, including those of England and Northern Ireland, are involved. That will be the case whether taxes are increased, decreased or varied. The Government promised that any tax-varying powers would be defined and limited, but that is not what the Bill or, indeed, the question on the ballot paper says. The question on the ballot paper is therefore a cruel fraud perpetrated on the voters. 7 pm A further point of great concern to many Opposition Members relates to the United Kingdom. Our manifesto and all the utterances of the former Prime Minister put the issue of the Union, let alone the European Union, at the very heart of our campaign. I cannot understand why the shadow Cabinet has not decided to have a formal Whip on my amendment to clause 1, which would extend the referendum franchise to the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. That would be entirely consistent with our manifesto and the policy of the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

If it is now the official policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that the franchise should be extended to the electorate of the UK as a whole, is it also its policy that any settlement in Northern Ireland would be submitted to a referendum of the UK as a whole?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Speaking as a Back Bencher, there is every reason why any referendum involving the dismembering of the United Kingdom should be referred to the United Kingdom as a whole. That has the merit of logic and common sense. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions, but with the encouraging proviso that Back Benchers are free to vote, according to the Whips, for my amendment if they so wish.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In 1979, did the Conservative party take the same stance and say that the referendum should have involved the UK as a whole?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am delighted to be able to say that we are always making progress. I must add that the impact of a Bill of this importance, with its tax-varying powers, puts it in the category of the first constitutional status which I would regard as not dissimilar to the European referendum of 1975, which was dealt with by the electorate of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hon. Members should consider these important points affecting the United Kingdom question. As I said, in 1975 there was a clear recognition that what was then the Referendum Bill, which was of similar importance to the internal domestic interests of the United Kingdom as this Bill is now, affected the United Kingdom as a whole. There was a national counting procedure because many Scots live and work in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. There are those who live in Scotland who qualify for a vote but who come from other parts of the world. The Bill is riddled with inconsistencies, injustice and contradictions. Why, but for the draconian discipline imposed by the Prime Minister on his Members of Parliament, is there no resistance among Labour Members from the north-east and north-west as there was in 1977 and 1979 and who, under the terms of the Bill, will be profoundly damaged by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers? It would, in any event, damage the rest of the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members of Parliament would lose most of their moral authority in the Westminster Parliament. There are at present 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. Some 30 years ago, the Kilbrandon commission on the constitution recommended that the number should be reduced and, indeed, one of my amendments proposes that it should be reduced to 45, which is, appropriately, the same number as when the Act of Union 1706 was passed. Furthermore, the Bill leaves in limbo the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, given his remarks today, is no doubt what he deserves. It is essential that it is clearly reaffirmed, just as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should also be reaffirmed in the Bill. I noticed the Secretary of State for Wales making light of the fact that amendments had been tabled to preserve the Crown and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Anyone who thinks that the Bill does not go to the heart of the future of the United Kingdom should not be sitting in this House as a Minister. We should repudiate any possibility of the Bill being a trojan horse for reducing the component parts of the United Kingdom to provinces within the European Union and reaffirm the direct accountability, whether in Scotland or Wales, of Ministers of the Crown exclusively to the United Kingdom Parliament. These matters are all part and parcel of the United Kingdom question. It is inconceivable that we can proceed with a Bill of this kind when it contains arrangements that are so vague that it is impossible for us to know what the role of the Secretary of State would be and the extent to which Ministers of the Crown would be responsible to this Parliament. Would they be responsible to a Scottish Parliament? What would be those Ministers' functions? The Bill leaves so many questions unanswered and puts the House in an impossible situation. The amendments propose a solution to the problems that I have outlined and, indeed, to the West Lothian question. There is an answer to it, although it may not be very congenial to Scottish Members. I suggest that when matters arise in this Parliament that affect only those parts of the UK other than Scotland, Scottish Members of Parliament shall, by Standing Orders of the United Kingdom Parliament, speak but not vote.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

That is highly unrealistic. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Treasury has a relationship with spending Departments. One can imagine what would happen if the spending Departments were in the hands of one party and the Treasury in the hands of another—it is absolutely unreal.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but that is not the case, and for this very good reason. The West Lothian question, which is often attributed to him, but which, as he has generously acknowledged, was posed by Mr. Enoch Powell, goes to the very heart of the dismembering of the United Kingdom and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out repeatedly in his distinguished career, presents the House with the impossible contradictions inherent in the present situation. If the Bill proceeds, and if the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party do not carry forward their opposition to this Bill and the devolution Bill as they did before, we shall face not only the dismembering of the United Kingdom but the question that he has just put to me—and we are going to have to resolve it. It is not enough to say that it is unreal. The situation is real because it has arisen. It has been presented by the Government, not the Opposition. Let me put it another way: how would Scottish and Welsh Members react—or, more to the point, how would Scottish and Welsh citizens react—if we set up an exclusively English Parliament but with a full complement of English Members who would continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters? That is the obverse of what the Bill is dealing with.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, particularly over the past 18 years, when Parliament was dominated by his party, legislation designated solely for Scotland was voted in by English Members, not by Members from the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party, which were the dominant parties in Scotland? His argument is illogical because legislation was imposed by him and his colleagues.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I take it that the hon. Lady is not suggesting that they had no opportunity to speak or vote. They may have been outvoted—

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The hon. Gentleman said speak and not vote.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I said speak and not vote in the new circumstances. My answer to the West Lothian question, which I pose as the United Kingdom question, is that after the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to propose changing our Standing Orders so that Scottish Members would be entitled to speak and not vote in the circumstances that I have described.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

No problem.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am delighted that the hon. Lady says that that is no problem, because it helps to relieve some of the difficulties inherent in the question posed so diligently in the past by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am certain that the Scottish and Welsh people would not want the situation to continue if we held pole position in the United Kingdom Parliament and they were constantly affected by our decisions. Refurbishment has not been mentioned so far. The issue is tucked away in a subtle and devious fashion in one of the last clauses in this wretched Bill. It says that we in this Parliament are expected to pay for the refurbishment of the buildings to be set up for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, even before the passage of the Bill on devolution or the publication of the White Paper—which definitely should precede that Bill, with the referendum coming afterwards. That is outrageous. It is equally disgraceful that we are not being allowed to debate this Bill properly, but the discussion on that has now taken place. As I have said, within the past 30 years, the Kilbrandon commission suggested that Scotland should have fewer Members. We should also give proper consideration to the threshold for the majority if there is to be an effective referendum. I dare say that other hon. Members will want to refer to that, so I shall not enlarge on it. I simply point out in conclusion that I have suggested a figure of one third in my amendments because I should like to know the Foreign Secretary's reaction, given that he proposed that in 1978–79. I should be happy with a threshold of 50 or 60 per cent., but as we are dealing with a Labour Government with a vast majority—

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Given the probability of the Bill becoming an Act, does he intend to campaign actively in the referendum campaigns? If so, where will he devote his energies—in Scotland or in Wales?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting question. I shall certainly campaign. I shall be in England, but I am near enough to Wales to be able to go there from time to time. The Bill is an outrage. It has been introduced outrageously and should be rejected, but I should like as many hon. Members as possible to consider my amendments and vote for them.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Because of the time constraints, I should like to ask just one succinct but practical and urgent question that goes back to an issue raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) in the previous debate. It is particularly relevant to the forces vote, but also to other bona fide Scots working in Europe or in England. 7.15 pm During the recess, I had the privilege of being asked by my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, to spend time with them on their operational duties in Bosnia. I can put the problem best by asking the same question that I was asked there. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards are based at Fallingbostel in Germany, but many of them are registered at Catterick, Winchester or other military bases. Many of them regard themselves as fully fledged Scots, just as Scottish as any Scottish Members of Parliament. They asked, "Are we going to have our say in the referendum?" What is the Government's thinking on that?

David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells)

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has asked a difficult question. I am glad that he has asked it of his Front Bench rather than us. I have a simple point to make. It is beyond dispute that the creation of a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales is of interest to the entire United Kingdom, affecting the whole country. The United Kingdom is a unique constitutional entity, created from four parts, bound together by a single sovereign Parliament. Combined with our unwritten constitution, that has created an unusual entity that, nevertheless, works well in practice. Anything that threatens to alter one part of the Union is of concern to all. That was recognised at the creation of the Union. Two separate sovereign Parliaments came together in 1707 to create a new Parliament for Great Britain, which was itself a new constitutional entity. It follows that any measure that affects that constitutional entity, such as the creation of a new Scottish Parliament, is a matter for all the citizens of Great Britain, now joined by Northern Ireland. Annual Government expenditure in Scotland is over £800 per head greater than the figure for the whole United Kingdom. In Wales, the gap between what is raised locally in taxation and what is spent there by the Government is even larger. Both Scotland and Wales have a large fiscal deficit. That is a matter of considerable controversy. My constituency looks over the Bristol channel to Wales. Many of the grants and subsidies that Wales gets transfer jobs from my side of the Bristol channel to Wales. The matter is controversial, but it is a price that many English people feel is worth paying for a successful Union.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he is referring to? Is he referring to identifiable public expenditure per capita? What is the £800 figure?

David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual publications produced by the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office. One is called "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland", the other "Government Expenditure and Revenues in Wales". The most recent figures I have are for 1994–95. From those publications I get a figure per head in Scotland of £839 more than for the United Kingdom as a whole. For Wales, the figure is less, but the other side of the equation—the revenue side—is much less, so the fiscal gap between revenue and expenditure is even wider for Wales than it is for Scotland. There is absolutely no doubt about it. From the figures available to all hon. Members, it is clear that both countries run large fiscal deficits which are made up by subsidies chiefly from the English taxpayer. I personally am willing to accept some of that deficit as a price worth paying for a successful Union. What I do not accept is that, in addition to the large fiscal transfers, it is now proposed that there should be a Parliament for Scotland and an Assembly for Wales which will, of course, be used to attract even more money, powers and privileges to those parts of the United Kingdom at the expense of the English counties. The Bill provides a small but significant example of what I am talking about. Let us look at who will pay for the costs of the referendum and for the preparatory work involved in setting up the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Clause 5 makes it clear that the money will come from the Consolidated Fund. In other words, it is overwhelmingly—again—the English taxpayer who will pay for all of this while having no say at all in the outcome and no vote in the proposed referendums. I will take another well-known example—the over-representation of Scotland and Wales in this House compared with what those two parts of the United Kingdom would be entitled to on a strictly pro rata population basis. I accept that there is a case for allowing the extremities of any country some over-representation to make allowances for the sparsity of population and for the difficulties of communication and travel, but that does not apply to the very small constituencies in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. If the proposals go through and if the referendums proceed as planned by the Government, in addition to that over-representation, Scotland and Wales will have their own Parliament and Assembly. The extra Westminster Members will continue to come to this Parliament. They will have nothing to do in their own constituencies because all the powers that they presently have over matters such as health and education will have been transferred to the local Parliament and the local Assembly. They will, however, apparently continue to come to this Parliament in the same numbers in order to interfere in matters that apply to England, and to my constituents in particular. The two examples I have given—the subsidies that flow to Wales and Scotland and the parliamentary over-representation—make one simple point. The referendums and their outcome are not matters simply for Scotland and Wales; they are of crucial interest and importance for the entire United Kingdom. I support amendment No. 2 because it would insist that the questions posed in the proposed referendums should be available to all the citizens of the United Kingdom and not simply those in Scotland and Wales.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the speeches we are hearing from Conservative Members are basically anti-Scottish. All the talk of Scotland being over-represented, of fiscal transfers and of the English taxpayer paying for the services provided for the people of Scotland is, frankly, racist. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) introduced the debate in an offensive manner. It is offensive to have the ability of Cabinet members questioned on the basis of their ethnic origin. If the hon. Gentleman does not find that offensive, he should not be in this place, which is meant to be the mother of Parliaments and the home of democracy. There would have been demonstrations in the streets against such racist talk from any Member of Parliament in the 1930s. It is a disgrace and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. Some hon. Members have spoken of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom, which is covered by this group of amendments. Most of the United Kingdom is already included in the franchise; everyone in Scotland and Wales will get the vote. During the general election, the English knew very well that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Stone said that in the general election, the Conservative party put preservation of the Union at the very heart of its campaign. I remind him not only that the Conservatives were wiped out in Scotland and in Wales, but that they did not do very well in England either. Some 61 per cent. of English voters voted for either the Labour party or for the Liberal Democrats, both of which made it clear that referendums would be held only in Scotland and in Wales. We have a mandate from the English people and we speak for the English people, unlike Conservative Members who try to build a case on that basis.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

On the basis of the argument that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting forward at the moment, I assume that he would not expect any Labour Government supported by Members of Parliament from Scotland, England or Wales to have any say on matters affecting Northern Ireland.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I never interfere in Northern Ireland's affairs; I have learnt that it is wise not to do that. I suggest that hon. Members who do not know much about Northern Ireland should not raise the matter of Northern Ireland casually. There is a very sensitive situation there and we should not blunder into it or make false analogies. It is typical, however, of Conservative Members to do that. The proposals that will be in the White Paper, and then in the Bills that introduce the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, will change the government of Scotland and of Wales. They will not change the government of England. As far as I know, England will continue to be governed as it has always been governed—by this place. I look forward to the day when the English come to their senses and say that it is time that they had an English Parliament. Many Conservative Members continually assume that this is an English Parliament with wee bits of Scotland and Wales added on. We are a big inconvenience. We cause debates, we cause trouble and we take taxpayers' money. That is the tenor of debate from Tory Members.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I am confused about why the hon. Gentleman supports the Bill as he resigned from the Labour Front Bench when it was announced in London that the Scottish Labour party would have to put up with the idea of a referendum. Why does he now support the Bill?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

It is quite simple. The Scottish Labour party subsequently endorsed the decision to hold a referendum and the Scottish voters then endorsed that decision at the general election. As a good democrat, I recognise when I am beaten and I accept that decision. I wish that Conservative Members would recognise when they are beaten in Scotland and that they would accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament because the Scottish people want one. Amendment No. 120 causes me some concern. It deals with people who were born in Scotland but no longer live there, and suggests that they should be allowed to take part in the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, as usual, come up with a very appropriate name for it: he calls it the Gary McAllister-Paul Lambert amendment. For Conservative Members from England who do not recognise those names, they are Scottish internationals. One plays in Leeds, other in Dortmund. They have made their choice to leave Scotland and to seek fame and fortune elsewhere. They earn big money for living outside Scotland. If that is their decision, one of the penalties they have to pay is that they cannot vote in elections in Scotland. That is an important distinction. Whoever you are, if you choose to leave your country, you choose to leave the democracy in that country. 7.30 pm I am worried about the ethnic nature of some of the amendments, as if where someone was born, or where their father and grandfather come from, qualified them for the franchise. We have only one franchise in Scotland—if someone lives in Scotland, they have the franchise no matter what their ethnic origin or which country they came from. That is the only franchise we recognise. The speech by one hon. Gentleman earlier caused me great concern. He was very passionate—I do not know his constituency so I cannot refer to him—and he had an almost mystical faith in the Union, which we frequently hear from Opposition Members. He used words and phrases such as consanguinity, marriage and the blood that ties us together. He stopped short of saying kith and kin, but that is what he meant. That is the language that the Tories used to use about the empire and the other parts of the world that England used to control. The Tories still think in those terms about Scotland and Wales, but those days are over. The fact that they have not recognised that those days are over is why they were wiped out electorally in Scotland and Wales. Democracy is changing. Power has been decentralised and the Bill is part of that process. It will strengthen the links between Scotland and England, not worsen them. Amendment No. 120 would extend the franchise to those whose grandparents were born in Scotland. On a similar basis, I could take part in the election in the Republic of Ireland next Sunday because my grandparents were Irish. That shows what nonsense the suggestion is. I should not take part in an election in another country that has nothing to do with me now.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that, under the Irish constitution, he would not be allowed to take part in next Sunday's election?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I have just said that. I said that if the amendment applied in the Republic of Ireland, I would be able to take part. It is right that I should not be allowed to take part in the election; and nobody who lives in America, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world who has a grandfather or grandmother who happened to be born in Scotland should be allowed to take part in the referendum. That is not a qualification for the franchise. A later amendment—I think it is amendment No. 149—would exclude citizens of the European Union from the referendum. Under amendment No. 120, a Scot who lives in the Republic of Ireland could take part in the referendum, but under amendment No. 149 he would be disqualified as a citizen of a member country of the European Union. That is nonsense. As for the Tories' threshold argument, the only reason to introduce thresholds into a referendum is to ensure that the referendum does not succeed. That is what happened in 1978. The people who introduced and supported the threshold did not want a Scottish Assembly. That was the last throw of the dice to stop it happening; it was not about democracy but about blocking the creation of a Scottish Parliament—and it is the same today.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

What about the Foreign Secretary?

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was a very bad man in 1978, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I have no truck with their position then. I opposed them then and if they did it again I would oppose them again. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has learned his lesson. He was wrong in 1978 and we in Scotland have paid a heavy price because we did not have a Parliament in the past 18 years to protect us from the policies of the hon. Member for Stone and his colleagues. Do not tell me that any Tory is interested in democracy in Scotland or in the Scottish people. The Tories rammed the poll tax down the throats of the Scottish people a whole year before they introduced it in any other part of the United Kingdom. There was no referendum then. Nobody asked whether the Scottish voters should be given the franchise. The Tories reorganised local government in Scotland. People in Dundee are still suffering because of the butchery of Scottish local government by the last Tory Government. There was no referendum on that. Local authorities in Scotland had to organise a referendum to stop water privatisation, like that in England and Wales, happening in Scotland. The Labour local authorities organised that referendum, not the Tory Government. We are not fooled by Opposition Members who say that they are worried about parliamentary democracy or the sovereignty of the people. They worry only about their skins and about power being devolved across the United Kingdom. A different political structure will make them into what they really are—a bunch of dinosaurs.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I wish to address the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in support of amendment No. 2. I am surprised that he, a member of a party that used to be called a unionist party, should favour a measure that would sow, if it were carried, the seeds of great disunity in the United Kingdom. If I understand amendment No. 2 aright, it would extend the referendum to England.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

To the United Kingdom.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop making comments from a seated position. He should know better.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has worked it out, but if the referendum were to be held throughout the United Kingdom and a different result were marked up in England—I say that advisedly—from that registered in Scotland, he would have created a revolutionary situation. He would certainly do so if he sought to translate such a result into a justification for the failure of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to implement the clear and settled will of the Scottish people to have a Parliament. The argument of the hon. Member for Stone has a second leg. He is not satisfied that the House of Commons can adequately determine the issues that would flow from a positive vote in the referendum. As the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is never slow to emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament—a view that distinguishes it from my party, because we believe that sovereignty rests with the people—it is strange that he should think that Parliament is not capable of deciding the issue. Of course, the outcome of a referendum in Scotland will have an impact on the United Kingdom as a whole. Our fates are linked and our constitutional arrangements should take account of a decision to establish a Scottish Parliament. Clearly, some of the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) must be addressed at some point.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

That is the nub of the question. At what point will the anxieties of, or the knock-on effects on, the people in England be addressed? According to the way in which the proposals have been made, those anxieties and effects will be brushed under the carpet and ignored. Those of us who believe in the Union and want it to survive are concerned that devolution will lead to an explosive situation. We want to prevent that. Those issues should be addressed now, in this debate—if not on the amendments before us, then on some others.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Those issues have been addressed and have been in order; otherwise the amendments to which the arguments were tied would not have been selected. They have not been ruled out of order and I do not suppose that they will be. The question is what weight they should be given, not whether they are in order. I submit that we should not attach great weight to those arguments now in determining whether to establish the machinery to hold a referendum to put beyond peradventure the view of the Scottish people on whether they want a Scottish Parliament along lines that will be set out in a White Paper to be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It seems that that is a relatively limited question. When substantive legislation implementing the will of the Scottish people as expressed in a referendum is brought forward, I grant that there will come a time for considering whether it is right that the House of Commons should remain constituted as it is and whether Scottish membership of the House should in some way be reduced, and by how much. It would also be right to consider whether the Scots would have not only the right to speak, but to vote not only on United Kingdom matters but on matters affecting parts of England for which they do not have direct responsibility or responsibilities which are discharged, as far as Scotland is concerned, in the new Scottish Parliament. All such matters are certainly appropriate for debate and certainly ought to be debated, but I question their relevance to the Bill. I question whether it makes sense to invite the English—again, I say that advisedly—or those living in Northern Ireland to contribute their views on whether the Scots have a settled mind on wishing to have a Scottish Parliament. I do not doubt that the English and those living in Northern Ireland have views, but my guess is that, if the English were consulted separately in, as it were, a separate constituency, they would most likely agree that, if the Scots wanted a Parliament, they should have it. There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence that Conservative Members of Parliament who have addressed meetings in England on this subject have encountered that answer from English audiences. I do not think that that need delay us.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Who does the hon. Gentleman think ought to pay for the Scottish Parliament—the Scots alone or the United Kingdom taxpayer?

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is an interesting question, which I will be happy to discuss when we consider the system and the scheme, either in the debate on the White Paper or the debate on the substantive legislation. I do not, however, believe that it is in the least germane to the issue before us. My party is by no means in favour of the referendum, but the facts are clear. The referendum is a Government commitment. They put it before the Scottish people and had it underwritten and endorsed, and it is simply unreal not to recognise that. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we are right in assuming that the mind of the Scottish people is settled. The referendum will give us the chance to put that question beyond any further argument. The issue is quite simple, and most of the amendments are a distraction from the central question about machinery and enabling us to put the question quite beyond doubt, which is at the heart of the Bill. I understand the arguments for holding referendums in other ways. I remember the debates that we had in 1978 about post-legislative referendums. All those matters will no doubt be discussed again in future, but tonight we have a relatively simple question before us. I do not think that in opposing amendments such as that tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, extending the question to other members of the United Kingdom, we are in any way denying that what would be done in Scotland would have its impact on others in the United Kingdom—of course it would. People had an opportunity to register that fact in a general election, and overwhelmingly supported parties that were committed to the course that the Government are now following. No doubt they will have further opportunities to express their views. Let the hon. Member for Stone and his hon. Friends recognise that they lost the argument. Let them recognise that they will have a further opportunity to return to the issues at the right time. They will be listened to with respect in so far as they are not seeking to destroy the wish of the Scottish people.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I shall speak specifically to amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which are in my name. I should make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, if he wishes to test the opinion of the Committee on the wider issue of the United Kingdom franchise, I shall certainly be in the Lobby with him. It is, however, the nature of the grouping of the amendments that if that first and more sensible amendment to leave out "Scotland" and insert "United Kingdom" were to fall, we would then be driven to consider a more narrow extension of franchise along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 120 and 121. Amendment No. 120 deals with what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has christened the Gary McAllister question. I would prefer to call it the Rob Wainwright question. I find it hard to understand why someone who is able to play rugby for Scotland should not be able to vote in a referendum on Scotland's future. The amendment therefore extends the franchise, should it not be extended to the whole of the UK, to those Scots who are not currently resident in Scotland. There is a precedent, and it was considered by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Referendum Bill authorising a referendum on the European Community. Lord Glenamara, then Lord President of the Council, suggested a number of conditions on which franchise might be extended. They were not being on the electoral register, having the right of abode, having resided at some time in the United Kingdom—in this case that would be in Scotland—being in occupation, service or employment abroad—not simply having retired to live elsewhere but being occupied or serving Scotland or the United Kingdom abroad—and having declared some intention to return, which was what he called a vital assurance of continuing connection with this country".—[Official Report, 22 April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1344.] In the end, the scheme was not proceeded with, although Lord Glenamara made it clear to the House that it would be so possible to extend the franchise. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution will address himself to the concern expressed in amendment No. 120. A great number of Scots—some of them indeed serving the state—will not be able to vote in the referendum, yet it would be perfectly possible, were the Government so minded, to allow them to do so.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

On the basis of the link between taxation and representation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of a Scottish Parliament having tax-varying powers, such people should also be subject to tax? Does not that underline the huge anomaly and nonsense of what he is proposing?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

No, it does not, because the referendum is a one-off decision. We have been told that constantly. It is a constitutional decision, setting up quite different constitutional arrangements. That is indeed why a referendum is proposed to decide it.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Lord Glenamara—Ted Short as he then was—who was the most candid and straightforward of men, really did believe that it was practical and sensible to extend the franchise.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

That is what the Hansard reports of the relevant debates make clear. It was perfectly practical and sensible and, even though time was short, the Government of the day actively considered it. Why should Scots living outside Scotland be disenfranchised on this major constitutional issue? Amendment No. 121 deals with service men serving abroad. I believe that it, too, has the support of the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The Government in 1975 acted on the issue and introduced a special clause specifically allowing those service men who were not on the electoral register to vote in the European referendum. They accepted the argument because service men at that point in the year—the spring of 1975—could not have known the previous October that a referendum was to be held, since the proposal was not made until January 1975. The same argument applies today. Those who might well have wished to make special arrangements to register their vote would have done so had they known last October that this special constitutional vote was coming up. The Government have always recognised that special arrangements need to be made for the service vote, and I do not see why it is not possible to make such arrangements in this case. There are many service men who would otherwise, perhaps, be stationed in Scotland and be able to vote there, but who are serving their country at very short notice in far-flung places. Their service should be recognised with some special arrangement.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The register that would be used for a referendum is the one that was compiled from a census last October, and people deciding whether to register then would have been deciding whether to enfranchise themselves for the United Kingdom general election. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who had chosen not to register for that general election would be missing out on the referendum vote?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

What I am suggesting to the Committee is that people could not have known last October that they had to be on the register then to qualify for a referendum that they did not know would be conducted this September. That is the point. It is only fair, particularly for service men, that we recognise that point, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about how Scottish service men are able to vote in the referendum.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I assure the Committee that amendments Nos. 83 to 85 are serious amendments intended to address the anomaly identified by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in his interventions earlier in the debate. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to the enfranchisement of Scots living outside Scotland, and amendments Nos. 84 and 85 relate to Welsh men and women living outside Wales. The amendments are, in a way, slimmed-down versions of new schedule 2, which was tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, and of amendment No. 120, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and others. They represent a serious attempt to solve a serious problem that has been brought to my attention by Scots men and women in my constituency who want to be able to vote in the referendum. I am disappointed by the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who introduced an unnecessarily confrontational note into a debate on a serious problem that is of concern to Scots men and women living outside their native country. The problem is complex, and yet rather simple. The Government of the day used the general election register in the 1978 referendums, but the present Government intend to use the local government register this time, thus allowing temporary European Union residents, including English men and women living in Scotland or Wales, the right to vote in referendums on the future of those countries, but denies a vote to Scots and Welsh people, temporarily absent from their countries—whether just across the border in England, or overseas serving their country in whatever capacity—who would be able to register as overseas voters for a general election. I want not to attack the Scots, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested that Conservative Members were seeking to do, but to defend the rights of Scots men and women living in my constituency. The Worcester Evening News, perhaps a trifle flippantly, summarised the situation as the Government intending to give a Greek waiter temporarily working in a backstreet cafe in Edinburgh the right to vote in an election about Scotland's future, but denying it to a Scottish journalist working here in Westminster for The Scotsman. That is an extreme version of a real anomaly.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am not sure which journalist from The Scotsman the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and whether he is absolutely convinced that that journalist does not have a residence in Scotland. Is he incapable of understanding why I, as leader of the Scottish National party, am perfectly comfortable with the idea of people from England, Wales, France, the rest of Europe, or Timbuktu, who are resident in Scotland and contribute to the community there, voting on the future of the country? Is he totally incapable of understanding why residents who contribute to a community should have rights of determination, regardless of where they are from?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I wish that we could have a serious debate on the matter. It is a shame that the guillotine makes that difficult to do. There are two separate issues: whether we should give temporary residents in Scotland from other European countries the right to vote in the referendum; and whether we should give Scots people temporarily absent from their country that same right. I think that the questions hang together and that there is an injustice in denying that right to a Scots person who is temporarily absent while granting it to a person who is there for only a short period and has no interest whatever in the long-term future of the country. That is my view, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) disagrees, but the two questions are separate and should both be addressed at greater length than is the case in this scandalously truncated debate.

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

Why should the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the Earl of Ancram—for example, have a vote on Scotland's future, when he deserted his native land to seek his fortune with the Tory party south of the border?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

I will leave my right hon. Friend the Earl to speak for himself, and I am sure that he will do so most eloquently. I am concerned about the points raised by my constituents—Scots men and women, born in Scotland, most of whom intend to return to Scotland later in their lives—who feel that they are being denied their right to express a view about their birthright. I do not know how they would vote—for all I know, they could be the most ardent pro-devolutionists—but that is not the point. It is an outrage to deny them their birthright. I find it surprising that Labour Members are laughing at that important point. They are laughing at Scots men and women who are seeking to exercise their right to have a say in their country's future. I find myself in the strange position, as an individual who opposes the legislation and the concept of devolution, at least on the basis proposed at present, of defending Scots people's rights in the face of the Government's hostility. I find that surprising. I am sorry that Labour Members are scoffing, because I intended to make a serious point and I would like a serious response.

John Maxton (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by temporary residents? I met the mother of an old friend, who was born in Glasgow in 1910 and moved to Oxford in 1936. If she now moved back, should she have the right to vote?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

My experience of Scots men and women living outside their country, whether in England or elsewhere, is that they have a deep sentimental attachment to Scotland that is often more powerful, I am ashamed to say, than that of English men and women to England.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

No. I want those on the Front Benches to have time to wind up, and I am taking too long over these remarks. Why are the Government insisting on using the local government register? My suspicion is that they are seeking to exclude overseas visitors who are eligible to vote in parliamentary elections and will probably be able to vote in the elections for a Scottish Parliament. I do not understand why, and I urge the Government to think again about the rights and wrongs of that issue. There is a strong test of residence in law. In 1970, in the Fox v. Stirk case, Lord Denning gave the following judgment: a person may properly be said to be 'resident' in a place when his stay there has a considerable degree of permanence". I would say that the Scots men and women in Worcestershire who are temporarily absent from their homes, and Scots people working overseas for IBM, for the Government, or whatever, have a more "considerable degree of permanence" about their attachment to Scotland than the people whom the Government intend to enfranchise in the referendum. I urge the Government to take the issue seriously. There is a real sense of grievance among Scots men and women—and, I suspect, among Welsh men and women, too—about the way in which the Government are approaching the measure. I plead with them not to deny Scots men and women their birthright to have a say in their country's future, when they are giving a say to people who have no interest in the future of Scotland. It is a great shame that the Report stage will come so quickly after the Committee stage, because that will not give the Government time to table amendments to address the issue. However, I hope that they will do so in another place.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I shall be brief. In response to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I can say that we all agree that if the proposals are to proceed, they should do so on the basis of the consent, the "settled will", of the Scottish people. However, the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me to convey the message, "Let's just ask the question, and not confuse the voters with the facts." Unless we address all the questions and issues now, that is what will happen. I have great sympathy with amendment No. 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), because it emphasises a simple point—that the Union of Scotland and England is a voluntary union of two parts. We would not expect one member of a club to be able unilaterally to change the rules of the club, to the detriment of the other members. Yet that is what is being proposed. It is fine for Scotland to have its own Parliament, but it is quite another matter for Scotland to have its own Parliament while remaining a member of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the complexity of those arrangements are not dealt with by confining the franchise to the local government register. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) to call the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) a racist for raising what he calls the Gary McAllister question. There is also the converse of that question, which we might call the Terry Butcher question. The idea that an English football player playing for Glasgow Rangers would have a vote on the future of Scotland, although Gary McAllister would not—

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

I shall not, because I want to be brief. To describe those arguments as racist ill-becomes the debate, and may reflect more on the sentiments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East about the English than on anything else. I wish to talk in particular about amendments Nos. 238 and 239, which I tabled, which propose to extend the franchise at least to the parliamentary rather than the local government register. I shall finish with a plea, to which I hope those on the Government Front Bench are listening. My constituency surrounds Colchester, and living in that town are the Royal Scots, the finest and the oldest infantry regiment in the British Army—all Scots, to a man. The Royal Scots recently came down to Colchester from Fort George, and they have a deep loyalty to their country. Why can they not have a vote on the future of that country? Will the Minister confirm that his proposal means that those men will not have a vote on the future of the country for which they are prepared to fight and die? That makes nonsense of the Bill.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

I shall be extremely brief, and speak only to my amendments Nos. 140 and 141, which relate to clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), and deal with the franchise. I want the Bill to be changed so as to read: Those entitled to vote in the referendum shall be those United Kingdom citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Scotland. That makes a slightly narrower point than that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). I seek to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that the Bill would allow European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales, while not allowing equal rights to the other interested citizens throughout the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the arrangements in the Bill conflict with what appears to be the law in other European Union countries. We do not have equivalent rights in other European countries. For example, under the Irish constitution, only citizens of Ireland can vote in referendums in Ireland. In France, only French citizens, and in Denmark, only Danish citizens, can vote in referendums under the constitutions of those countries. The same applies in Sweden, Spain, Norway and Italy, and there is an equivalent procedure in Belgium. Why on earth are we allowing European Union citizens to vote in Scotland and Wales on the future of the United Kingdom, when the other European countries do not allow us the same rights in their referendums on constitutional matters? That seems wholly illogical.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

The amendments deal with one of the most serious flaws in the Bill—the arbitrary restrictions and limitations on the franchise. I think that it is common ground that the question that needs to be addressed with regard to the referendum is how it is properly and effectively to establish, in the late John Smith's phrase, the "settled will" of the Scottish people and the Welsh people? We therefore need answers from the Minister to the many questions that have been asked about the arbitrary definitions proposed in the Bill. Earlier today, we started with the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Gary McAllister question. That is a serious question, which cannot be brushed aside by some of the rather contemptuous observations that have been made by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. Indeed, that question has been reinforced by some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said that it was the reverse side of the Terry Butcher question. Behind it lies the real difficulty encountered by those who happen temporarily to be resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, who are to be given no voice on a matter that touches not only on the government of Scotland and Wales but on the administration of the whole of the United Kingdom. When the Secretary of State for Scotland moved Second Reading—he was here a moment ago and he may return—he treated the House to a little joke about peppery Scotsmen in Kuala Lumpur who still take an interest in the old country. I do not share his hilarity. Scotland and Wales have never been inward-looking nations, and the world has been enriched by the talent and energy of Scotsmen who have carried their work abroad. The Secretary of State may find them figures of fun, but I think that most of his constituents would take considerable pride in those people's achievements. The amendments that we are discussing concern not peppery old chaps in Kuala Lumpur, however, but the rights of Scots and Welsh men and women living and working in our own country. The epitome of that point was put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks and for North Essex, and it was set out clearly in amendment No. 121, which deals with those who are temporarily away from their homes in Scotland because they are serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. The Labour party likes to present its devolution proposals as patriotic, but I cannot begin to see any genuine patriotism in disfranchising those Scottish and Welsh soldiers who form some of the finest regiments in the British army. Yet without any reciprocity, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has pointed out, the Bill denies a say to many natives of Wales and Scotland, while giving a say to citizens of the European Union who happen to be residing temporarily in those countries. So in some cases there will be a vote for people born in Athens but not in Arbroath, a vote for people born in Samos but not in Stornaway, and a vote for those born in Grasse but not, alas, in Gorseinon. Many questions spring from those propositions and call for answers. Why is the franchise to be determined by entitlement to vote in local government elections? Why should it not be entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections? What is the reasoning behind that? What considerations led the Government to that view? Why not establish a central register of electors for the precise purpose of establishing those who are to participate in the decision that will be taken as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland? Why not have provisions to make obtaining the vote impossible for people newly arrived in Scotland who are only temporarily resident? Such people may have arrived only a couple of weeks before the due date but fulfil the qualifications and may be entitled to vote. Why not have a time limit? Why not say that the person concerned must have been resident in Scotland or Wales for a period of three or six months so that they have a legitimate locus standi for taking part in the decision?

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

My right hon. and learned Friend is delicately tripping around the amendments. I have been driven to notice that he has not referred to the lead amendment. What does he think about the proposal to extend the franchise to the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not minded to vote for it, why not?

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

I know my hon. Friend far too well to think that I could get away without addressing his question. I promise that I shall come to it before I sit down. I have asked some of the questions to which I hope that we shall get serious answers from the Minister before we are subjected to the arbitrary fall of the guillotine. It is a reflection of the mischief of the guillotine procedure that we have not been able to examine such serious questions in detail. We should have been able in Committee to canvass in detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of a franchise based on local government elections or parliamentary elections or a central register. There are serious arguments for and, no doubt, against each of those options. If the Government had not been so heavy-handed, we would have been able to address those questions fully and effectively and so come to a conclusion that would have enabled the outcome of the referendum to be seen much more genuinely, properly and effectively as establishing the settled will of the people of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will deal specifically with amendment No. 121, which the Opposition Front-Bench team would certainly have supported had it come to a vote. I do not know whether the question to which it gives rise will go down in history as the Sevenoaks question, the Bosnian question or, indeed, the North Essex question, but it is important and deserves a comprehensive answer. I have much sympathy with the thought that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to move amendment No. 2. I understand why he moved it and why I imagine that he will press it to a Division. We have given some consideration to the matter and do not think it right at this stage to support it. That does not mean that the proposals do not have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom which may warrant wider consideration in due course. We have yet to see whether the Government will provide any sort of answer to the West Lothian question, or whether they will begin to address the over-representation of constituencies in Scotland. We have no idea whether the Government will take seriously the financial implications of their proposals, not least the question that will arise in due course of what would happen to the contribution made by the rest of the United Kingdom to the financing of services in Scotland if, however unlikely it may be, a Scottish Parliament decided to use its tax-varying powers to reduce the burden of taxation on the people of Scotland. Those fundamental questions go to the heart of the legislation. If satisfactory answers are not provided, we may well have to revisit the question whether those who reside in other parts of United Kingdom should have a say on the outcome of the proposals. For the moment, we await the answers that I hope that we will get from the Minister on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and to the other important and legitimate questions raised by my Friends in this all-too-brief debate. If the Government's proposals are to acquire real legitimacy—which must be their objective, and we do not seek to challenge it—they must provide convincing answers. I look forward to hearing what answers the Minister will provide.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I am delighted to respond to the debate and will certainly take up the challenge put forward by some Conservative Members on important issues. I am struck by the fact that we spent three hours on a previous motion on timetabling discussing our inability to have a debate. We have had 10 speeches, including some excellent contributions that were concisely put. Perhaps it is an exemplar of the way in which the House should conduct itself in other matters, and in respect of the rest of the Bill.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

rose—

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I shall not give way at this stage. As always, I shall allow interventions later. I am impressed by the fragile fraternity that exists among Conservative Members in respect of their coherent approach to the submission of amendments. That is a problem for the Opposition, not for Her Majesty's Government. In passing, I am sure that Labour Members and other hon. Members are a bit sick of being lectured about damaging the Union when this measure is designed to strengthen it. Patriotism is not the preserve of the Opposition when uttered in the way that it has been. All hon. Members take great pride in the House; it is one of the binding qualities that keep us here arguing so coherently. I have some useful advice for the Opposition. It is only four weeks since the rout, but, at some time, they will have to acknowledge the debate that is taking place in their party in Scotland. That is friendly advice. As has been said, in Wales and Scotland the Tories need some nurturing by the Westminster-based parliamentary party. [Interruption.] It is my style to be helpful to the Opposition. [Interruption.] It is not patronising—it is sound advice which I hope that the Opposition will take.

Francis Maude (Conservative, Horsham)

On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate in a debate that has been guillotined for the Minister to make such patronising general observations instead of responding to the questions that he has been asked?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) raised an important issue. Things have moved on since the 1975 referendum. If hon. Members had gone to the Library, they would have found the relevant clause. Service voters can make a service declaration for an address in the United Kingdom. It may be their home address or another, for example, that of their parents—whatever would be their residence in the UK if they were not serving abroad. Clearly, it is not possible this evening to specify answers for individuals without knowing personal circumstances. I confirm that service personnel who are resident in Scotland will not lose their votes by virtue of serving abroad. To be helpful, I shall spell out the current position in detail. There is no need for further provisions in the Bill because the facility already exists, and we guarantee that it will be exercised in respect of this referendum.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for what he said. I would wish to study his words. Does he mean that a service man who has been posted from Scotland to Catterick and then from Catterick, as part of the brigade, to serve in Bosnia, will be deprived of his vote because originally he was resident in Catterick?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I would wish to respond to it specifically. My understanding is that the situation that he has outlined would be covered. We are talking about the residency issue in Scotland in terms of the declaration that would be made by service men and women who are not operating in their employment in Scotland. With the approval of the Committee, that is one of the issues with which I should like to deal specifically, and I certainly will.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

When? The Minister is on his feet. Deal with the issue now.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised an interesting point on the Gary McAllister question.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

Will the Minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

No, I have made the point.

Peter Luff (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire)

When will you deal with the issue?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

When Ministers are trying to be helpful I think that some courtesy should be extended to them.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

No, I am not giving way. I want to deal with the questions that have been asked. On the one hand, Members want answers, but, on the other, they want to continue to filibuster. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made an interesting contribution on the so-called Gary McAllister question, a matter with which I wanted to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the Paul Lambert and John Collins questions. I can tell hon. Members, whether it entertains or worries them, that there will be a Paul Gascoigne factor. I am sure that he will have a vote in the referendum if the Bill passes through the House of Commons. The purpose behind the large group of amendments that is before us is to change eligibility to vote in a variety of ways. Some amendments are designed to allow people who are resident in any part of the United Kingdom to vote in the referendum, while some amendments are designed to change the franchise from local government to parliamentary status. Others are designed to enable people with only a tenuous claim to Scottish or Welsh roots to vote. That procedure is usually reserved for filling football teams. Other amendments have been tabled with a view to requiring a pledge hand on heart for potential Scottish or Welsh residents that they will move to those countries. None of these amendments is acceptable to the Government.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Will the Minister give way?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

No. I want to make some progress. I shall, however, allow the hon. Gentleman back into the debate later. The questions whether there should be a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly are primarily for the people in Scotland and Wales as they are most affected by devolution.

Bernard Jenkin (Conservative, North Essex)

On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Would it be in order for the Minister to write to hon. Members with the details of the answers that he currently does not have time to give us? I am no clearer now than 20 minutes ago whether the Royal Scots in Colchester will get a vote in the referendum.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

On a point of order, Mr. Martin.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

It is, Mr. Martin. It happens that I tabled the lead amendment. I have attempted to get the Minister to answer the question that I have posed. It is a convention of the House of Commons that a Minister is expected to deal with the question raised within the terms of the first amendment in the group. The Minister has not responded to it yet.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

My usual style, Mr. Martin, is to give way to interventions. I am trying to balance the fact that only eight minutes are available to me in which I might try to answer some of the questions asked against continual interventions that are of no particular substance. I have answered the question of service registration. I think that it is sufficient to leave the matter there for the present. I shall be writing to those hon. Members who have raised the issue. Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would add to the electorate any person born in Scotland and Wales who is entitled to vote in a general election in any part of the United Kingdom. That would allow someone born of English parents who has lived all his life in England and has no connection with either Scotland or Wales to vote in a referendum because, by chance, he happened to be born in Scotland or Wales. Why should such a person have any more right to vote than, say, a Scot who is now living in England? Amendments Nos. 148, 152, 160, 164 and new schedules 2 and 3 are attempts to set up a central register of electors for the referendum. That register would allow five additional groups to vote in the referendum. Members might wish to read the new schedules to learn exactly what hon. Members have in mind for their fair franchise. Perhaps those concerned would like to explain just how their fourth and fifth categories of voter would take their so-called oath of allegiance, promising to live permanently in Scotland. Would they have to take the oath standing on the Stone of Destiny? Would squads of Scots police pursue absconders south of the border and drag them, kicking and screaming, back to their hielan' hame? Hon. Members will have to do better than that if they want their amendments and new schedules to be taken seriously. The key criterion for deciding who should vote, in terms of our proposals, must be residency. Many hon. Members have confirmed today that that is the sensible, logical and effective way in which to proceed. I accept that people in parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland and Wales will have a genuine interest. As hon. Members who have promoted the amendments have demonstrated by their own actions, eligibility to vote must depend on more than just interest. The principle has been well established in previous referendums. For example, in 1973 the people of Northern Ireland voted on the constitutional status of that part of the UK. In 1975, people in all parts of the UK voted on continued membership of the EC. In 1979, the people of Scotland and Wales voted on the devolution plans of the time. On each occasion, the principle of residency was applied. The Bill has, of course, been debated by the UK Parliament, as will be the Bills to establish a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, subject to the outcomes of the referendums. These debates will provide ample opportunity for the interests of people in all parts of the UK to be taken into account through Members of the House of Commons. That seems to strike the right balance between seeking the consent of those most obviously affected by the proposals and ensuring that the interests of the UK as a whole are taken into account. As an aside, looking ahead to a possible referendum on Europe, would hon. Members suggest that as the UK's membership has an effect stretching well beyond its borders, citizens of all other member states should be entitled to vote on UK membership? Those who support amendment No. 121 have raised an important issue. Obviously, we want to ensure that service voters have the right to participate. I have tried to reassure the Committee that that is the case. As a courtesy, I want to explain in detail the current position so that hon. Members are left in no doubt that it is the reality. We shall ensure that it is operational when the referendum takes place. The current arrangements are apparently working well and it seems important that we should allow them to continue to do so. Amendment No. 120 would, if accepted, stretch some of the points raised this evening even further. I do not seek to be frivolous in any way, but the amendment could allow someone born in, for example, Bolivia of Bolivian parents, who has never visited Scotland, to vote in the referendum merely because his granny was a Scot. What sort of fairness is that in relation to what we are attempting to do on franchise? Obviously and understandably, Conservative Members have tried to range wide in our discussions today. However, the substantive Scotland and Wales Bills will come before us later in the Session. It is important to remember that, despite the timetabling motion, we shall have an opportunity to raise at a later stage some of the issues that have been highlighted by Conservative Members this evening. At present, we must remain within the strict terms of the timetable motion if we are to keep in order.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The Minister has still not attempted in any way to answer the main question that has been raised this evening. Will he answer a simple question: why are the Government not prepared to extend the franchise under these referendums to the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he answer that simple question?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I have already answered that question. I have said that the issue of the referendums is primarily one for Scottish and Welsh voters. It must be recognised, however, that the House of Commons, in discussing the Bill during its various stages, will have the chance to reflect the views of everyone living in the United Kingdom. It is vital that that is emphasised. It seems that despite attempting to curtail comments on the timetable motion there is the view around that in some way the House of Commons will be deprived of the possibility of looking in depth at the proposals. I want to go some way to allay the fears of Conservative Members, if they are genuine fears. We intend to publish a substantial White Paper, and there will be a debate in the House. The White Paper will inform the campaign before the referendum takes place. That is vital, because we want Scottish and Welsh voters to know what they are voting on. The White Paper, informed by the results of the referendums, will form the basis on which we shall develop the Bill. That will give us ample opportunity to ensure that every sector of the United Kingdom is represented through individual Members of Parliament. That is a reassurance, and we intend to make it a reality.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

In the final few minutes, will the hon. Gentleman condescend to address amendments Nos. 140 and 141?

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

I have responded to the franchising issues. We believe that we should resist the amendments.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'and tax varying powers of a Scottish Parliament' and insert 'of a Scottish Parliament with tax—raising powers.'.

Part 1

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The amendment would adapt the Scottish referendum. It would no longer involve two separate ballot papers, one asking the electorate whether they agreed with the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament and the other asking whether they agreed that that Parliament should have tax-varying powers. The purpose of the amendment—[Interruption.]

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Thank you, Mr. Martin. The amendment seeks to consolidate the two questions into one. The people of Scotland would be asked in a referendum whether they agreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. Obviously, there would be only one ballot paper, but the single question would reflect the content of the two questions that the Government wish to put to the Scottish people. On Second Reading, I explained why Scottish Liberal Democrats were not persuaded of the need for a referendum in Scotland. We have voiced our opposition to the second question. I have been asked many times by Mr. Kenny McIntyre, Mr. Brian Taylor and Ms Kirsty Wark what I would do about the second question and I have said, "If it comes to it, I shall table an amendment to delete it." I am trying to fulfil that commitment. The origin of the second question may be linked to the origin of the referendum. It is our perception that Labour was nervous about the taxation issue. I negotiated and worked with Labour in the constitutional convention, and I do not doubt for a minute that the party is persuaded of the merits of a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. However, it was clear in the run-up to the general election that the word "tax" was slightly frightening the party, and that effect was perceived not least in the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury team, and especially in the Minister without Portfolio, who did his utmost in the years leading up to the election to make sure that the word "tax" became neutral. Labour said during the election campaign that there would be no increase in United Kingdom tax rates during the lifetime of this Parliament. My hon. Friends and I took the view that the strategy of not frightening the natives or the horses with the word "tax" could be undermined if Conservatives pointed north of the border and said, "There is the real Labour party because it proposes to establish a tax-raising Parliament." Labour had to try to neutralise that. The press floated some ideas of what Labour might do. For example, it said that a Labour Government might incorporate a 75 per cent. voting threshold in a Scottish Parliament for tax powers to be implemented, or that there might be a provision in the Act to allow the taxation powers of the Parliament to be activated only in its second term. Labour came up with a referendum that made specific reference to tax powers so that the party could say to middle England, "Labour is not a taxation party at all. We have even given the Scots the choice about whether they want a Scottish Parliament to have taxation powers." It has been said that the referendum was foisted on Labour by Islington. That is at least two miles better than the distance from which the Conservatives worked because they foisted things on Scotland from Downing street and Whitehall. The Scottish Labour party executive, which, when it comes to a head count, is a large vocal minority, strongly opposed the referendum and the tax powers. However, when faced with the reality of what it was being asked to do by London, it went one better and had a second referendum agreed with three questions. Under that, the taxation powers of the Scottish Parliament could not have been activated without a further referendum, in which the Parliament would have said, "We are about to use the tax powers. Do you want us to use them?" That is like giving turkeys the power to vote for Christmas.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

At one stage, I think that there was a proposal for a third referendum, in which people would have been asked, "Are you absolutely sure?"

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That sounds like a Northern Ireland referendum.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

Am I right in thinking that the second proposed referendum was described by the Prime Minister, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, as the mature and sensible decision of the Scottish executive committee?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I think that I mentioned that on Second Reading. The "mature and sensible decision" that was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was disposed of seven days later by the now Secretary of State for Defence, who had come to his senses in the meantime. During the election campaign, there were signs that, notwithstanding the fact that tax powers might be agreed by the Scottish people in a referendum, Labour would still be reluctant to use them in its first term. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to have second thoughts. We are not dealing with a principle; nor do I think that Labour ever sought to argue the issue on principle. It is a tactic and, to be fair, it has served Labour well. The issue of tax was neutralised and Labour successfully kicked it into touch. As I said, our single question would refer to the tax-varying powers of the Parliament. I emphasise that, because in the context of our proposals for setting up a Scottish Parliament, we are not afraid of the tax issue. There is no need for us to apologise for the fiscal powers that we and the Government want for that Parliament. Tax establishes the nexus of accountability between those who are elected and those who elect them. People will be elected to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about political priorities in Scotland, and they must not be allowed to hide behind a shield or to create a scapegoat by saying, "We were not allowed to raise the money for this." In the general election, we argued for 1p on the standard rate of tax to fund education. The Liberal Democrats did extremely well in the election. We doubled our number, but we did not quite make 331, so we are not able to implement that policy. That is a pity in terms of investment in education. If the Scottish people want to vote to put a party in the Scottish Parliament that will make a greater investment in education, they should be able to do that. If Scotland wants to lead the way, as it often has, not least in education, it should be able to do so. That is why we believe in the importance of the flexibility that taxation powers will confer.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

Perhaps we could be clear on exactly who is to be taxed. For example, should Scots who spend more than half the year working in England be taxed?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Such issues are important, and I have no doubt that the legislation will address them in detail. I have always understood that there are clear residency rules for taxation in the United Kingdom. By simple analogy and application, the same situation could apply in Scotland. For example, I do not think that Gary McAllister lives for more than half the year in Scotland. There is no question of his not being taxed, even on the bonus that he will receive when Scotland qualifies for next year's World cup finals in France.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Forgive me if I am being a little obtuse, but is it a prerequisite of voting in the truncated or one-question referendum ballot paper that the hon. Gentleman envisages that the voter must be a potential taxpayer, or may non-taxpayers also vote?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

Of course non-taxpayers will also vote. The fact that we have tax thresholds means that a number of people do not pay tax because their income, regrettably, is insufficient. They will be eligible to vote, as will people who are on social security and do not pay tax. As you are aware, Mr. Martin, from having sat through a large part of our earlier debate, the referendum franchise will essentially be governed by residency and, unlike that for parliamentary elections, it will include peers and European Union citizens who are in Scotland. Of course, peers and EU citizens resident in Scotland pay tax, but taxation is not the basis of the franchise; nor is it the basis of the franchise for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. The point I was making was that taxation powers are critical to the Scottish Parliament, to give it flexibility and accountability. Indeed, the absence of tax powers was identified by Conservatives and others as one of the weaknesses of the Scotland Act 1978. People may recall that, when the Bill was going through another place, Lord Home said that the Scottish Assembly had to have some ability to raise revenue, or we should be "asking for trouble". Those of us who were involved in the referendum campaign may remember that the great promise to the Scottish people, at the behest of the late Lord Home, was that, if they rejected the proposals, an incoming Conservative Government might offer them something better. Of course, that never materialised. Many of us saw through that ploy at the time, but it is important to remember that the absence of tax powers was seen as a weakness. Many of my hon. Friends who were in Parliament at that time agreed with that, but thought that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. We would certainly now take the view that tax powers are absolutely essential. 9 pm The other argument that is put against the tax powers is that having tax rates in Scotland that varied from those in the rest of the United Kingdom would cause substantial problems. Many businesses have come to Scotland. Inward investment in Scotland has been significant over recent months and years, and that is by companies that have known that there was a distinct possibility—indeed that it was increasingly likely—that a Scottish Parliament would be established with tax powers. That has not turned them away. I suspect that fluctuating exchange rates and the pace of technological change and innovation are much more influential in determining investment decisions than the fact that Scotland may have a different tax rate, plus or minus 3p, from the rest of the UK. Already there are significant differences, even in personal taxation, within Scotland and within the UK. Council taxes vary from local authority to local authority. The siren voices coming from the Conservative party tell us that, because Scotland might conceivably—of course this would happen only if the people of Scotland had voted for it—have a higher tax rate, perhaps by 1p in the pound, people are going to flood out of Scotland and go to work in England. By the same token, because Shetland has the lowest council tax rate in Scotland, I am surprised that there has not been a huge influx of people from all over Scotland, indeed from other parts of the UK, to live in Shetland, not only for the privilege of paying a lower council tax, but for the many other privileges that go with living in Shetland. Clearly, there are a number of reasons why people decide to invest in a particular place. Because the council tax bands in Scotland are materially different from those in England and Wales, similarly valued houses in Carlisle and in Dumfries can have different council tax rates. Because of the banding, the council tax for a house in Dumfries can be much higher than that for a similarly priced house in Carlisle, yet there is no evidence of a drain of people from Dumfries and Galloway into Cumbria. Because I was born and brought up in those parts, I know that companies recruit from both sides of the Borders, and in recent times that has never been identified as a problem in terms of recruitment. Therefore, the case for the tax powers is considerable. As I said, we wish to consolidate the two questions. Why not have the two questions? In many respects, although the Labour Government, perhaps anticipating the next debate, will say that they are against a multi-option referendum, with the two questions, they are offering a variation on the multi-option referendum. We shall have the status quo as one option. Another option will be the scheme proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers—and the third option will be a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers. The odd thing is that no serious person within the home rule movement in Scotland currently advocates a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers. I understand that, in a recent interview, the Minister of State said that, if the outcome of the referendum were yes, no, the Government would be prepared to legislate for a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers—indeed, for a Parliament that no one is campaigning for. I have no doubt that the Government's good faith and commitment is to a Scottish Parliament with taxation powers. I am sure that they believe that that is in the best interests of Scotland. However, that raises an interesting question, which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. Why are the Government prepared to contemplate, at least in theory, and prepared to put into practice—they have indicated that they would—legislation that they believe would be less than in Scotland's best interests? I know that the Conservative party believes that it is not in Scotland's best interest to have a tax-varying Parliament, but I believe that it should have a tax-varying Parliament and I know that that is what the Government believe; we must be concerned that they are prepared to legislate for something less than that. The Government must answer that question. We are elected to exercise our judgment in the best interests of our constituents and our country. If our judgment is that Scotland should have a Parliament with the full taxation powers proposed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, we should be wary of trying to legislate for anything less than that. I fear that if a Parliament does not have taxation powers, that could be the recipe for the break-up of the United Kingdom and for an unstable Parliament. If, for example, the Parliament could not deliver a new hospital in Arbroath or a new school or school refurbishment in Greenock, it would be easy for a Member of the Scottish Parliament to say that there was not enough money, because Westminster would not provide it, and to complain that the Parliament did not have the power to vote any money for itself. That could lead to instability. Another possible outcome of the multi-choice option is that there could be a no, yes vote. Some people say that they do not want to risk a Scottish Parliament without taxation powers, so they will not provide a blank cheque by voting yes on the first question. However, they may want to ensure that if there is a Parliament, it will have taxation powers, so they will vote yes on the second question. I have heard some Conservative supporters say that they do not support a Scottish Parliament, but that if there is to be one, it should have the proper accountability that comes with taxation. That would give a no, yes outcome. No one has told us what will happen if we get a no, yes outcome. Another point of concern to my hon. Friends is that there is the possibility of unstitching a key part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention scheme. I know that that is not what the Government wish, but it is what they are positing as a possibility. During the general election, the present Prime Minister said that even English parish councils have tax powers. Some people took advantage of that and said that he was comparing a Scottish Parliament to an English parish council. I understood him to mean that if an English parish council can have tax powers, a fortiori, a Scottish Parliament should have tax powers. We are being asked to accept the possibility of a Scottish Parliament without tax powers. If it is good enough for an English parish council, it must be good enough for a Scottish Parliament.

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that parish councils in England are not subject to a limitation on the amount of taxation that they can raise within the tax area that they are granted? In fact, if we take the Prime Minister's analogy a little further, it would be appropriate to remove the upper and lower ceiling on the variation of revenue-raising powers which it is now proposed to give to the Scottish Parliament.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

That was a helpful intervention. I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of English parish councils. I thought that the powers were more limited, but I am interested to hear those points. It strengthens the case. If English parish councils have that degree of flexibility and the accountability that goes with it, it is even more worrying that the Government would be prepared to countenance the possibility of losing the more modest and limited powers proposed for a Scottish Parliament.

Richard Livsey (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Is not it even more extraordinary that the Government are not even prepared to consider such options for Wales?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the absence of tax-varying powers from the Welsh proposals. I am sure that some of my Welsh colleagues will wish to make that point. I want to make it clear that if we were to lose the amendment in a vote tonight, my party would enthusiastically support the campaign for a yes, yes outcome. We want a Scottish Parliament. That has been Liberal policy for the best part of a century and we want it delivered. There is a real expectation in Scotland that, this time, it will be delivered. I ask the Minister to consider, even at this late stage, the merits of consolidating the two questions. In many respects, that would honour the commitment that the Labour party made in its manifesto, as it would be a question on the Scottish Parliament itself, with the clear highlighting of the fact that that Parliament would have tax-raising powers. By consolidating the questions, we would not run the risk of causing some of the problems that I mentioned. One reason for the opposition in Scotland to a referendum when the Labour party announced its proposal last June was that people identified it in their minds with the 1978–79 wrecking tactic, especially the 40 per cent. rule. I do not believe that the Government want to wreck the process. It is clear from what has been said and from the passion with which the Secretary of State put the case this afternoon that that is far from the Government's intention. However, as those who know the history of home rule in Scotland are well aware, there has been many a slip in thinking that a full-blooded Scottish Parliament is in our grasp and then letting it slip away through some fault of our own. We do not want that to happen now. We believe that by asking the single question that we have proposed, all concerns can be embraced. I have every confidence that we would get an overwhelming yes vote, and then we could get on with the real business of creating Scottish and Welsh Parliaments for the next millennium.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I want to deal with some of the amendments grouped with amendment No. 87, and thereby broaden our debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on his courage. After four weeks of total adulation of the Labour Government, he has at last been brave enough to be mildly critical of their proposals. We hope that it is the forerunner of many other occasions when the new Liberal Democrat party will behave more as a part of the Opposition than as an adjunct to the Government. The aim of the amendment is to consolidate the proposed two questions into a single question on a single ballot paper. Although I cannot support the wording, which would create something inimical to the Opposition's views, it may avoid certain distortions and anomalies that could arise from having two papers. I understand that some people—I hope that I do not do the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) an injustice in including him—take the view that they might say no to a Scottish Parliament, but that if there were to be one anyway they would wish it to have tax-raising powers. Under the Bill, there could be a no vote on the first question of a simple Scottish Parliament and a yes vote to one with tax-raising powers. If that is a broad response, it could produce the most extraordinarily distorted result. I hope that the Government will consider that point carefully. If they are trying to assess the opinion of the Scottish and, indeed, the Welsh through a referendum, the last thing they want is a result that makes no sense. I want to broaden the debate because it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the way in which the Bill is framed and is being taken through the House. The Bill attempts to lull the electorates in Scotland and Wales by asking the questions that Ministers think will be the least likely to create fear in the hearts of those electorates and, therefore, the least likely to be rejected. The achievement of that objective was why we saw such an extraordinary parade of proposals. The Labour party first proposed one referendum, then one referendum with two questions, then two referendums, and then, once again, one referendum with two questions. It was Labour's attempt to present the formula that it believed would create the least offence and fear in the minds of the people of Scotland. Conversely, the Opposition have forcefully argued that a referendum should take place only after all the information is available to the people of Scotland, so that they can make a valid judgment on whether to say yes or no to the proposals. 9.15 pm The question that is currently proposed is anodyne. It states: I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament", but does not even suggest whether a Scottish Parliament will be established as specified in a White Paper or in legislation. The prelude to the questions on the ballot paper, in schedule 1, mentions. the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament", but it does not state what those proposals will be or mention a Command Paper. The real questions are left hanging in the air. As I said in a previous speech, a question such as, "I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament", would not even necessarily mean establishing a devolved Parliament within the United Kingdom, because it could mean establishing a Scottish Parliament within an independent Scotland. The second question states: I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers". "Varying" is a wonderful word of comfort. In amendment No. 87, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland included the words "tax-raising", and he was right and honest to do so. Like all hon. Members, he knows that, if we establish a Scottish Parliament and provide it with all sorts of powers to do all sorts of things, it will be looking for the resources with which to do them. If we provide a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers, the almost inevitable consequence will be that those tax-raising powers will be used and that the Scottish people will consequently be financially disadvantaged.

Robert Smith (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks would happen to his party's fortunes in an election to a Scottish Parliament. I have contested local elections in which the Conservative candidate has stood on a platform of cutting expenditure and tax. Does he not believe that, in elections to a Scottish Parliament, the people of Scotland might vote for Conservative candidates who stand on such a platform?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

If that hypothesis were correct, a very interesting question would arise. As we know, Scotland is financed by a formula block, which is provided by the UK Parliament and Government. If there were to be a tax reduction, we would need to know, before a referendum, whether it would be paid for by the English taxpayer through taxation that is paid into the Scottish block, or deducted from the Scottish block, with a consequent reduction in services for people in Scotland. I do not know the answer to that question, because I am not making the proposals. If there is to be a genuine and valid referendum in which people can make a judgment, that is precisely the type of question that will have to be answered.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the Government do not know the answer to that question? This is the first referendum Bill that does not bear the name of any Treasury Minister—neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has signed it—among its list of supporters. Is that perhaps because, as we read two weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone very cool on devolution"?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

That is a very interesting question, which we can include on the list of questions that we should like the Minister to answer. Given our experience to date, however, we are unlikely to receive answers to any of those questions. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking his question. A referendum is being proposed on questions that are so anodyne and so ambiguous that the people of Scotland will not be able to make a valid judgment. They will not, therefore, be able to provide an answer on which we can proceed with confidence. There are a vast number of unanswered questions, such as that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow about who will pay the tax because, presumably, the rate at which it is set will depend on who pays it? Will a higher tax in Scotland lead to an increase in overheads in Scotland and therefore a loss of competitiveness because people ask for higher wages to make up for the fact that they pay higher taxes? Will that be a disincentive to people working in Scotland? I come originally from the borders where it would not be difficult for people to move across into England to work if they thought they would pay lower taxes. That would greatly disadvantage those who live in the borders and the economy of the area. We are asked to decide on the Bill and on the referendum but we do not know the details of the proposals. We are told that we shall see the White Paper before the House rises for the summer. We are told that we shall have a debate on it but not how long that debate will be or how detailed the White Paper will be. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution said in the debate on the previous group of amendments that we would be able to consider the proposals in depth. If that is correct, and if the Minister is referring not only to the White Paper but to the proposals in the form of legislation, does it mean that we shall be able to have a debate on the Floor of the House? The Minister went on to say that such a debate would be the opportunity for people from all parts of the United Kingdom, through their elected representatives, to examine the proposals. Is he therefore saying that the proposals will not be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee but that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom will be able to participate in the Committee stage? We need to know the answers. It is not enough for the Minister of State to shake his head and say that he cannot provide those answers. If we are to allow the Bill to proceed, answers to such questions are germane to the decision that we must take. We are debating whether taxes will go up or down, so we need to know what the Scottish Parliament is likely to be able to do. We need to know the answer to questions such as what will be the remuneration of members of the Scottish Parliament? How many staff will be required to run it, and what will be the costs involved? How will the Scottish Parliament be funded—out of the Scottish block or, more widely. from United Kingdom funds? What effect will the Scottish Parliament have on the Scottish block grant? Will the Scottish Parliament have powers of spending over education, the national health service or agriculture in Scotland? What powers will it be able to exercise in relation to the police, transport and planning in Scotland? Whether taxes are likely to go up or down depends on the answers to those questions. If the people of Scotland are to make a reasonable judgment, they need to know the answers before they vote in a referendum. What powers will the Scottish Parliament have to provide housing in Scotland? Who will be liable for the taxes levied by the Scottish Parliament? Such questions must at least form part of a White Paper, and if they do they will have to be debated at length and in depth so that no question mark is left in the minds of the people of Scotland when they vote. As we have heard, in previous referendums of this sort it has always been the practice to have the legislation in place before the referendum, precisely so that the people who vote know the answers to their questions and can make an appropriate judgment. I know, and I am sure my colleagues know, that the reason why the Government are fudging the issue is that at the last referendum, despite the fact that for years the opinion polls appeared to show great demand for devolution in Scotland, when the relevant legislation was introduced and examined and its implications for Scotland became known, support for devolution dropped dramatically and opposition to it increased dramatically. It is to avoid that danger—[Interruption.]The Secretary of State for Scotland arrives at precisely the right moment—

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I thought that I was addressing the amendment. Our amendment No. 145 requires the leaving out of the word "varying" and the insertion of the word, "raising".

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I accept your ruling, Mr. Martin. My difficulty, which I am sure that you share, is whether tax-raising powers are likely to be used. That will be in the minds of voters at a referendum. For them to be able to make a judgment they will need to know what powers a Scottish Parliament is to have. My point—I hope that I am not transgressing—is that if that question is to be posed in that way and is to make any sense to voters at a referendum, they will require that extra information. I am suggesting—within the limits of the amendments, I hope—that the Government have approached the issue as they have because they know that providing that information in detail, or even accepting the substitution of "tax-raising" for "tax-varying", suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would damage their chances of getting their proposals accepted in a referendum.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least that the people of Scotland need is a clear undertaking that the favourable grant formula, which is very beneficial to Scotland, would not be affected by the tax-raising powers? Is it not vital that there should be a yes or no from the new Secretary of State on that point before any referendum?

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing another question to add to my list of important questions that need to be addressed if people are to make a reasonable choice in the referendum. The Secretary of State arrived a few minutes ago and raised his eyebrows, but he had not heard the debate. I think that he and I were in the same studio in 1979 when the results of the referendum came through. He arrived in the morning triumphant, expecting an overwhelming vote in favour of devolution. At the end of the day, I think that the figures were 33 per cent. for and 31 per cent. against, with the rest not bothering to vote. That was because the people of Scotland had the information on which to make the judgment. If we are to take seriously his assertion that the referendum is a democratic exercise, we need the information that I have asked for. If the amendments are passed, we shall be able to get it.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I wonder whether we could have some clarification, perhaps tonight, on who is to pay the tax. Is it to be anyone domiciled in Scotland? Some of us want an early statement on that, because, as I said during the debate on the Queen's Speech, part of the difficulty is that in international taxation, state borders provide the touchstone for separating the taxing rights of one fiscal regime from those of another. Where the border is not real, the imposition of tax by reference to the familiar tests of residence, domicile, source of income and location of trading operations is likely to be complex and expensive at best and unfair and a major brake on business in Scotland at worst. We must face up to the issue. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If we are not careful, England will be, de facto, a tax haven, given that the border is not real in the way that federal states have real borders. The hon. Gentleman could say that the Liberal Democrat solution is a federal one, but that would be different. If the argument is that there should be a federal state, my difficulty might arise less strongly because in a federal state the border would be far more real. However, given the Government's proposals, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we must face up to the question of the border because of the creation of a de facto tax haven. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for a warning of this point, it was made at column 292 on 16 May.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Gentleman is raising an important point which, when we come to the White Paper and the devolution Bill, will rightly be dealt with in considerable detail. I am interested in what he says about the border and the advantages of federalism. I believe ultimately in a federal solution for the United Kingdom. What we are debating—the subject matter of the referendum—is a step towards that. I do not understand one point, however. At the moment, we have a border that is a legal border because there are important differences between living in Carlisle and living in Dumfries in terms of criminal law and juvenile justice. At the moment, we have a meaningful border. Although there are many advantages in federalism, the border issue will not necessarily be any more clear cut with a federal state than under the proposals that we are debating.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

These are complicated matters. I reply partly in terms of a problem that the hon. Gentleman raised—the problem of Scots who may spend a considerable time, possibly more than half the year, working outside Scotland. That point is not just an Aunt Sally; it is the problem of those who have rotating jobs. The matter was raised in acute form the other day by one of the major employers, Mr. Stewart of Scottish and Newcastle, who said that it was a real problem for the company's many executives and middle-rank employees. There should be early clarification of the matter because the more information we have the better and the healthier the debate will be. We must get clear the residency rule. What about those who are on temporary secondment? That is a very real issue because there are lots of people on temporary secondment, which operates in both directions. It is no good saying that this is an arcane issue. For my sins—I do not know whether the Secretary of State has had the same experience—I was a member of nine Finance Bill Committees. One learns that one is legislating not for people of good will or for the mass of people who want to do the right thing, but for those who want to exploit the law to the fullest extent in order to get maximum benefit for themselves. That is part of the reason why laws have to be so tight in this case.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Is it, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's position that we cannot finalise the details of either clause 1 or the shape of the ballot paper until we receive answers to those questions?

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

I have always taken the view—I have to be totally candid about this—that the meaningful referendum is on the question, "Do you approve of the 1997–98 Scotland Act as passed by Parliament?" Incidentally, throughout the election, that was the answer I made crystal clear to anyone who cared to ask. I am saying nothing in June that I did not say in March and April. I make that quite clear. The Secretary of State courteously gave me a response in our previous debate on the Barnett formula—on the key question of whether the Barnett formula is to be preserved. I looked carefully at the response and I wish to ask the Minister who will wind up whether he is in a position to add anything to the answer that I was given the last time I asked the question.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I was interested, as always, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I suppose that he had some reason to speak on the issue; he was once described as a lonely and isolated figure—because he supported a referendum—by the previous spokesman for the Labour party in Scotland. Things have moved on; the hon. Gentleman may still be lonely and isolated, but not because of his support for a referendum.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that it would be a pre-legislative referendum. My constituent in Linlithgow, if I may so refer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is right to say that I was described as lonely and isolated. Various other comments were made at the same time, but we will stick at lonely and isolated. Never did I dream of anything other than a post-legislative referendum on the final outcome of the parliamentary discussions.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I happily accept the designation as the hon. Member 's constituent. I did not vote for him—after much reflection, I decided to vote in Banff and Buchan—none the less, I am well represented in the House by the hon. Gentleman's efforts, and if I ever have a problem I will beat a path to his door. I accept that if we are to have a referendum on the proposals, it is more logical to have a post-legislative referendum. That is a reasonable point to make. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, if he has his way in the pre-legislative referendum, we will not also have a post-legislative referendum.

Henry McLeish (Labour, Central Fife)

indicated dissent.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I see a helpful shake of the head from the Minister. Given the litany we heard from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of the permutations that the policy has gone through in the past year, I am sure that the Minister will accept that we need his firm assurance on that point, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the Conservatives but to the great relief of the rest of us.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

What happens if the referendum vote is yes and, as a result of our debates, major changes are made to the legislation, so we end up with something very different from the White Paper that the Scottish people will consider this summer? Is not that possibility one reason for having a post-legislative referendum?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If the House were to decide that independence for Scotland was a much better way forward, as I have always argued, that would be a substantive change and I would argue for an independence referendum. The hon. Gentleman does not seriously believe that there will be such a radical change, but if he has hopes that I can nourish I would be pleased to hear them. We cannot anticipate both a pre-legislative and a post-legislative referendum, because that would try the patience of this Scottish electorate beyond reasonable endurance. I make a diametrically opposed interpretation of the Bill to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). He argued that the Government's intention in suggesting a two-question referendum was to buttress the referendum and devolution proposals. I reached the opposite conclusion. I think that the reason for the referendum, without going through the full route march of the explanation, was to buttress the Government's prospects in the general election. The intention was to remove aspects of the constitutional proposals from the general election campaign. The former right hon. Member for Stirling is but a distant memory, and has been replaced by the much more amenable hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who is in her place as I would expect. Some people in Scottish politics felt a year or so ago that the tartan tax campaign being waged by the then Secretary of State for Scotland was successful. I never shared that opinion: the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, who was replaced by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), had a much better tactical campaign in the 1992 election. He kept his major arguments until the immediate onset of the campaign. It struck many of us that the former right hon. Member for Stirling fired too many of his bullets on the tartan tax far too early. I have no doubt that the decision to go for a two-question referendum was a direct result of fears about what the tartan tax campaign was doing to Labour's prospects not on the devolution proposals but in the general election. Those fears were misplaced, as we all probably agree in the comfortable aftermath of the general election. Unfortunately, they have left the House and the Scottish people with a proposal that does not make serious sense when it is analysed. Such analysis has been extremely well conducted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who pointed out that, in effect, one referendum, two questions produces a multi-option referendum. It gives us not the multi-option referendum that has been generally supported at one time or another across Scotland by many Labour Members, but one that offers a choice between the status quo, which was soundly rejected—it came third in most of the constitutional polls over the past few years—and a Parliament without tax-raising powers, which is not supported by any serious body of opinion in Scotland or, indeed, through the proposals of the Government or the Liberal Democrats. How can it be right to offer people a multi-option referendum through the device of two questions but not offer a proper, serious multi-option referendum of a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo? Isolating the tax-varying power as part of a referendum is the worst possible thing to do if one is serious about a devolution proposal going through. In the 1992 general election, the campaign for which the Secretary of State for Scotland and I remember extremely well, the issue of a tartan tax was not raised to nearly the same extent—because it was then part of the convention proposal for what was called assigned revenues. The tax-varying power was part of a wider taxation remit. There was not the same isolation of part of the proposal, which is extremely weak and vulnerable to attack and criticism. I cannot conceive of how anyone who is serious, optimistic and genuine about a devolution commitment thinks that extracting the weakest part of the devolution scheme and subjecting it to a second question, as opposed to doing so with, for example, a more popular aspect of it such as proportional representation, is in the interests of constitutional change. That is an extremely dangerous, gambler's move on devolution. I nourish the deep suspicion that some of those who thought that that was a good idea—I excuse the Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench of this entirely—did not sincerely wish the second question to be endorsed. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, what would happen if we got a yes, no result? The Liberal Democrats have been long-standing supporters of Scottish self government, yet in such circumstances, as they signalled in interviews, they would find themselves perhaps voting against a self-government proposal. What logic is there to a proposal that probably or possibly risks losing the votes of part of the coalition in favour of devolution as a result of a two-question referendum? My party's main interest in the proceedings is to secure a genuine multi-option referendum to allow real free choice between the concepts of independence, devolution and the status quo—the referendum which is overwhelmingly supported in Scotland and which has been supported on both sides of the House. It was, incidentally, first a Liberal idea in the 1960s, proposed by the soon-to-be Lord Steel, so it has been supported by all parties and is still the right referendum to have, if we are to go through a referendum process. It would be an improvement to subtract the second question. It would be in the interests of not confusing the electorate and of those of us who want constitutional progress in Scotland. In tomorrow's debate I intend to force the issue of a multi-option referendum; in the present debate I am inclined to support the amendment.

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), because I recall that, more than 20 years ago, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a rector of Edinburgh university and invited the right hon. Gentleman and me to become members of a commission to consider the workings of the university and, among other things, the repercussions on the university and on higher education in Scotland in general of the then Labour Government's proposal to set up a Scottish Parliament. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman was a keen supporter of the principle of a Scottish Assembly at that time and that he wanted to extend the powers proposed by the then Government to include the power to legislate on Scottish higher education.

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not setting out intentionally to mislead. I was a supporter of devolution in 1968 and until about 1972, when I suddenly realised the cost of it to the Scottish people. Certainly, by the time I served on that commission with him, I had seen the light.

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to rewrite history. He should read the manifesto on which he stood in Berwick and East Lothian at the general election in 1974, when the Scottish Tory party had a clear commitment to set up a Scottish Parliament, or Assembly, as it was called at the time. No wonder the voters of Berwick and East Lothian turfed him out; he then sought refuge in Edinburgh, South, and the people there turfed him out, after which he sought refuge in Devizes and in Belfast—he has been all over the place, trying to get power and a safe seat in his precious United Kingdom. I listened with more respect to what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who were, and still are, our partners in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, because I would far rather we spent our time on legislation to set up a Scottish Parliament instead of pussyfooting around and wasting time with this legislation. The Government are clearly determined to hold a referendum, but I fail to understand the need for two propositions to be put to the people of Scotland—one on the principle of a Scottish Parliament and another on whether that Parliament should have revenue-raising powers. There is no meaningful Parliament in the world that does not have revenue-raising powers. Even the smallest authority in Britain—if we do not want to talk about English parish councils we could mention the smallest local authority in Scotland, Clackmannanshire council—has revenue-raising powers, of which the last Tory Government approved. Of course, the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

But not in terms of control over its own revenue. Clackmannanshire council controls approximately 10 per cent. of its revenue. With the tax-varying powers, the maximum that a Scottish Parliament can control will be 3 per cent.

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

I take that point. Some of us argued within the convention that there should be more revenue-raising powers, including a case, perhaps, for all the revenue-raising within Scotland to be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman and his party boycotted the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Had he not done so, he might have been there to lend his support to that argument, which was advanced by others as well as by me.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

To follow through his argument, could the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the Welsh people have done to offend the Labour party, that they are not allowed a revenue-raising Assembly?

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

I shall leave it to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies to put the case on behalf of their people. I was saying that the Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful—

Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

rose—

Dennis Canavan (Labour, Falkirk West)

I think that we are running out of time. The Scottish Parliament will be far more powerful than any local authority because it will have a budget of about £1 4 billion per annum. It will also have the power to legislate on matters such as housing and the national health service in Scotland, as well as education, tourism, and aspects of industry and the economy. If the people of Scotland want to spend an extra 1p or 2p on income tax for a better national health service, or for better educational opportunities for their children, surely that should be their basic democratic right. If the Scottish Parliament had no revenue-raising powers, it would be completely dependent on the revenue-raising powers and votes of this Parliament. It would have no fiscal autonomy or responsibility. So it is not very clever to separate the Parliament from its revenue-raising powers by asking two separate questions on, as I understand it, two separate ballot papers. I still see no need for a referendum, especially after the mandate that we got from the people of Scotland and Wales at the general election. Even so, a single-question referendum is better than a two-question referendum, so even on the principle of the lesser of two evils, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has considerable merit. It does not exclude specific reference to tax-varying powers, but puts the matter in a single simple proposition, to be determined by the people of Scotland.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I hope that, on reflection, hon. Members will vote for the amendment, because if we do not have that wording, it would be outrageous to propose to the people of Scotland an Assembly without tax-raising powers. For reasons that hon. Members well know, I oppose the principle of a Scottish Assembly, or Parliament, altogether. However, we can be sure of one thing—that a Parliament without tax-raising powers would be a disaster for Scotland and its people, and for the rest of the United Kingdom. Bearing in mind the fact that Scotland is a nation in which people are conscious of their aims and objectives, if everything were going wrong in Scotland—all the hospitals and schools did not have enough resources, the road programme was not working, and so on—it would be blamed on the British Parliament in London, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament would be sitting there. That would simply stoke up the demand for independence and help to break up of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will avoid putting before the people of Scotland what might appear a nice option—a Parliament that will not cost them anything. The second advantage of specifying tax-raising powers would be to remind people that a Scottish Parliament would cost them a great deal of money. Before the previous referendum, I found that one of the reasons for the move against devolution during the campaign was that people had not previously been aware of the full cost of the operation. It would have included not only the cost of all the new Members of Parliament and their offices, with all the expenses involved, but the substantial additional bureaucracy. The third advantage of mentioning tax-raising powers is that it would allow a debate on how we support Scotland. I had the privilege many years ago—probably before most hon. Members were born—of being a Minister in the Scottish Office before I had to resign when the Prime Minister signed the treaty of Rome. Every year we had to negotiate a formula or grant whereby we got cash for Scotland. There was then a differential by comparison with England of about 14 per cent.— a substantial amount. People in Scotland are not fully aware of the substantial additional funding they receive.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Rubbish.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

It is not rubbish. I negotiated the figures. I assure the hon. Gentleman that although the nationalists have different views, the plain fact is that there is substantial additional funding.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

My final point will answer the hon. Gentleman's question; I know what it will be. As he was about to propose, the best question for the referendum would be to ask the people of Scotland whether they want to be fully independent. A referendum on devolution could lead to over-government, extra spending and huge waste and uncertainty. There is no middle way between independence for Scotland and the present situation. Precious few powers are left in the assembly in Westminster. Hon. Members know well that we constantly make speeches about things over which we have no control. Hon. Members shout about the fishing industry when, effectively, all the power has gone. They complain about the cruelty involved in the export of live animals, but their power has gone. If we set up a new, separate Parliament in Scotland, in addition to the county and district councils and this Parliament, it will create a mess of over-government. It would be infinitely better for the people of Scotland if they were not misguided by misleading questions and made up their minds about whether Scotland as a separate nation should be independent. I therefore hope that the House will consider the amendment because it is more realistic, truthful and sensible. Irrespective of the question, I hope that the people of Scotland will have the common sense once again to reject this costly nonsense, which will do no good to them, to Scotland or to the United Kingdom. For the first time in many years, I support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Tommy Graham (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, under the Tories, 4,500 quango members ran Scotland at a cost of nearly £15 billion? Surely it is time for democratic control by elected members.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I will form a popular front with the hon. Gentleman to get rid of quangos and get back to democracy. Sadly, if he looks at the Labour manifesto, he will find that the new Government will create lots of new quangos that will cost more and employ a great deal more bureaucracy. If he and I can work together to fight quangos and support democracy, I will be glad to form a new popular front with him and the Liberal Democrats.

Edward Garnier (Conservative, Harborough)

Several questions must be asked about this part of the Bill. The questions raised by the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) are pertinent. It is a pity that the Government have ignored them. The Government propose to impose pre-legislative referendums on the people of Scotland and Wales. People will be invited to discuss before the referendums many questions to which they will not be provided with answers. What will be the remit of the Scottish Parliament? What will be the constituencies? If it is to be elected by proportional representation, will it use a list system, a partial list system or the additional member system? What will be the pay, conditions and allowances of its Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked what it would cost. When and how often will it sit? What will be its hours? Will it sit one month out of 12 or will it be a full-time body? Will it be a condition of membership that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not also be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament? Will they also be allowed to be Members of the European Parliament? May they be members of district, regional or island councils? Will the tax raised by the Scottish Parliament go to the United Kingdom Treasury? Will it go to some new Scottish Treasury? Or will it go into some other basin into which to pour the largesse of the people of Scotland? Who will pay the tax, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked? What will happen to the Scottish grant that we have heard so much about? It is not good enough for those on the Treasury Bench to talk about the residence tax for the taxation system; it is a far more complicated matter than that. Will it be examined at any stage during the debate on the referendum? The only sensible referendum question is that proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the leader of the Scottish National party, and that is to offer the Scottish people full independence or nothing. If they vote for— To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Object.

Bahrain

George Galloway (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I begin by warmly congratulating the Minister of State his appointment. He will know that I predicted high office for him when I served under him as a humble foot soldier on an obscure Bill in Committee, which was considered in a room along the Committee Corridor some years ago. My hon. Friend has not disappointed me. With his progressive record and his deep and genuine commitment to liberty around the world, he will form part of a Labour Foreign Office which I believe will be a beacon of hope for the powerless and the downtrodden in all countries. The Government have started in such an inspiring way on the domestic as well as the international scene and nothing that I shall say this evening should be taken by my hon. Friend as any kind of criticism. Rather, I want to probe the way in which the Government intend to practise in their policy towards Bahrain what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary so eloquently preached in the Foreign Office mission statement, which has resounded to this country's credit throughout the world. I am well aware that no country's foreign policy can afford to be entirely selfless, and the first priority of any Government is the well-being of their own citizens, their own economy and their own strategic interests. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly said, however, we all of us are citizens of the world and misery and turmoil in one place inevitably have consequences for the rest of us. One such area is Bahrain. Since the emir ordered the suspension of the constitution in August 1975 and closed down the Parliament, extreme instability has enveloped the island, with repression, arbitrary arrests, torture, forceable exile and the shooting down of peaceful demonstrators demanding nothing more than the restoration of their Parliament. In 1994, a petition signed by more than 25,000 people—Sunni and Shi'ite, men and women, people of the left, right and centre—was to be presented to the emir. One might think that that was routine, but the response of the Bahrain Government was far from routine. The leaders of the popular movement were arrested, as were thousands of others. That was followed by more oppression, more deaths under torture and further exile. Bahrain became the first country in the world to deport its own citizens and demand that other countries refuse to give them asylum. In January 1995, I met three of that unique class of deportees in the Palace of Westminster, where I hosted a press conference for them. The last person to speak to them as they boarded the plane into exile was a British security agent, who was working under Colonel Ian Henderson: a man at the very heart of the darkness in Bahrain. No sooner had those deportees arrived in this country than the Bahraini Foreign Minister flew to London to demand—successfully to date—that the three be denied political asylum. I know that the Minister is aware that those interested in human rights in this country and the Bahraini people are watching closely to see the outcome of the claims for asylum by Sheikh Ali Salman, Sheikh Hamza al-Dairi and Sayed Haidar al-Sitri. My first request is that the Minister draws to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the keen interest that there is in that asylum application and the need for its fair and swift adjudication. Torture is commonplace in Bahrain—of that there can be no doubt. The Minister's predecessor, the former right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, said several times in response to questions from me and other hon. Members that he had raised the issue of the abuse of prisoners with the Bahraini authorities. The United States State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other international human rights organisations have produced veritable mountains of documentary evidence of such abuse and torture. My hon. Friend the Minister has raised those concerns with the Bahrainis in the past and more recently, but I must ask him an obvious question. If, in the teeth of all that evidence, of international opprobrium and expressions of concern from my hon. Friend and his predecessor, the Bahraini people are still being shot like dogs in the streets by security forces led by British mercenaries and are still being abused on the torture tables in the dungeons of the regime, has not the time come when merely raising concerns is not enough? Thanks to the new Labour Foreign Office mission statement, we have an opportunity to move beyond mere rhetoric towards practical, internationally co-ordinated measures to bring pressure to bear on persistent and unheeding offenders against basic human rights, of whom Bahrain is undoubtedly one. It is clear that the Bahraini dictatorship is nervous about the Foreign Secretary's mission statement. That can be measured by the intensification of contacts sought by the Bahrainis. It will not have escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the very first visitor from the Arabian Gulf to arrive on his doorstep was the Bahraini Minister of Transport. Nor will he have missed seeing in the respected Arabic daily Al-Hayat the photograph of the son of the crown prince, grandson of the emir—it is not so much a one-party state, more a family business—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at their meeting last week. The report has the Bahraini Minister reviewing the deep relations between this country and Bahrain, and in particular our security and defence co-operation. I am sure that I would not be the only person to be grateful if the Minister were to elaborate on the precise security and defence arrangements between our two countries. How deep are they, and how are they affected by the arrogant refusal of the Bahraini dictators to listen to their friends in Britain? I am not alone in wanting to know what safeguards have been built into that co-operation to ensure that no equipment, no training and no British personnel are used in any way against the civilian population of Bahrain. After all, even the previous Government, whose mission statement was deafening in its silence about human rights, had very clear safeguards on the sale of Hawk trainer aircraft to the Indonesian Government. I am not asking for the cancellation of British-Bahraini defence co-operation; nor, for that matter, are the leaders of the Bahrain opposition in London, one of whose distinguishing characteristics is their moderation. However, despite their moderate and peaceful character, it has been brought to my attention and, I suspect, to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister that the movements of the London-based opposition are now being monitored by agents of the regime. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take this opportunity to assure the House of the Government's commitment to the well-being of those opposition leaders while they are here in exile. The Bahraini opposition are not asking for a change of government in Bahrain; they are not asking for the overthrow of the emir; they are not asking to form a Government in Bahrain; they are not even asking for full Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. All that they are asking is for the emir to restore the Bahraini constitution that he suspended in 1975. My next request to my hon. Friend the Minister is that he place clearly on record this evening that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government—Her Majesty's Labour Government—that the suspended constitution be reinstated in Bahrain. I believe that, as an interim measure, we should impress on the regime the urgent need to begin dialogue with the opposition. The political leaders must be released, in particular Sheikh Al-Jumri, without whom no such dialogue could possibly be achieved. I believe that my hon. Friend should cause our ambassador in Bahrain himself to meet the opposition, both as a sign of our support for human rights and constitutional government and to send a clear message to the Bahraini Government that we mean business when we raise our concerns with them. There is ample precedent. In dictatorships all over the world, past and present, our officials maintain regular contact and dialogue—if only for information purposes—with those who are struggling for basic human rights in their own countries. What reason would there be for not doing the same in Bahrain? Yesterday, while preparing for the debate, I had the doubtful—because distressing—privilege of a visit from one of the victims of the repression to my office in Westminster. I shall call him Mohammed. He is 19 years old, and in another time or another place he would have been a normal young student. In my office, he took off his shirt to display a body hideously pock-marked by gunshot. All over his back and down his left arm, pieces of shrapnel nestled under his agonised skin. What was his crime? To be in a demonstration by school students who were protesting at the emir's refusal to receive the petition that I mentioned earlier. Mohammed, however, is merely one in thousands. More than 5,000 people on that tiny island have been detained just in the past three years, and at least 1,500 such detainees remain in gaol without trial, undergoing or fearing torture. Many are held under the infamous state security law, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to order the detention of political suspects for up to three years without charge. Such trials as have been held are frequently taken by the state security court, often in camera. In those trials, evidence usually rests solely on confessions extracted from defendants under torture. No appeal is allowed against its rulings, and, more important, death sentences passed by the court are subject to no appeal. The Bahraini Government promised the last British Government that they would cease to use the state security court for such trials. They have broken that promise, and continue to use the SSC to date. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that Bahrain's state security court is an affront to all international norms of justice, and should be suspended immediately. According to a report in The Guardian on 13 May, a detainee was tortured in Bahrain in a dungeon fitted with British-supplied torture equipment. Have the Government had time to investigate that allegation, and if not, will my hon. Friend undertake to do so? If it transpires that that torture equipment originated in this country will the Minister refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to prosecuting the British companies that are involved? The Bahraini Government refuse all requests by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for permission to visit Bahrain and investigate reports of the ill-treatment of detainees. I am sure that the Minister will join me in demanding that reputable and respected human rights organisations should be allowed access to Bahrain. I said that I would return to the person who is at the heart of the darkness of the Bahraini regime. I am sad to say that he is a British citizen and sadder still to say that he is a Scotsman, Colonel Ian Henderson. Henderson might have walked from the fevered pages of a Graham Greene novel. He was an interrogator of the Mau Mau during colonial rule in Kenya in the bitter struggle for independence. So brutally efficient were his methods that, on obtaining independence for Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta tried to re-engage him in his own security apparatus. So notorious was Henderson that a demonstration was mounted by his victims and the whole affair became so scandalous that Kenyatta was forced to deport him. Via Ian Smith's Rhodesia, he ended up as the right hand man of the Al-Khalifa. In the Gulf, Henderson is known as the butcher of Bahrain. He is the head of the security services and director of intelligence and has gathered around him the kind of British dogs of war, mercenaries, whose guns and electric shock equipment are for hire to anyone who will pay the price. It has been commonplace for previous Ministers to brush off criticism of Henderson with the claim that they have no responsibility for his actions, but I do not think that that is entirely true. After all, the House rightly made it possible to pursue, try and punish the British sex tourists who pollute the Philippines and Thailand with their paedophile proclivities. How much more have we responsibility similarly to pursue people who torture and murder for money and who carry Her Majesty's passports? The House rightly made it possible to try people in this country for war crimes that had been committed in Ukraine or Belorussia more than 50 years ago. I have legal advice which says that the United Nations convention against torture places an obligation on Britain to arrest or attempt to extradite Henderson. Lord Avebury said in another place that, should Henderson return here, having eaten his fill at the trough of the dictatorship, he will face a battery of civil actions for damages from victims of his crimes. That is not enough. Ian Henderson is Britain's Klaus Barbie. The European Parliament has called Britain to prosecute Henderson and there is another fundamental point that cannot be gainsaid about Henderson's provenance. Britain's relations with the island of Bahrain have been warm, close and special for 150 years. Ian Henderson was appointed as deputy director of security on the island in 1966, which was five years before the British left and the territory became independent. Therefore, he was appointed by a British Government, I regret to say by a British Labour Government, to his position in the secret state apparatus of Bahrain. Of course, the Minister would be right to say that Ian Henderson is not an employee of ours and has nothing to do with us. That is true up to a point, but the Minister must know that that is not how it looks to the man on the torture table looking up at Henderson. It is not how it looks to the demonstrators who are falling in the streets in a hail of gunfire that is directed by him, and it is not how it looks to the wailing families as they bury their dead, people who have been killed by Henderson's forces for the crime of demanding democratic reform. We as a people have a clear duty to repudiate the conduct of one of our citizens in the service of a foreign power who stands condemned of crimes against humanity. I hope that I have done enough in the debate to make the case that, while of course we must continue to do business with Bahrain and engage constructively in the process of offering its people help and assistance to build out of that autocracy, it cannot be business on the same basis as before. The Bahraini Government must know that Britain now has a Minister and a Government who mean what they say and say what they mean, a Government who really believe in human rights and democracy.

Derek Fatchett (Labour, Leeds Central)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on introducing this short but important debate on human rights and the specific question of Bahrain. His interest not just in Bahrain but in the broader topic of human rights is well known. He has raised some specific issues. If my hon. Friend is agreeable to this, I should like to make a few general points about human rights, deal with his specific questions and, I hope, sum up by talking about our approach to Bahrain in the future. There has been much interest in the House and elsewhere on the issue of human rights. My hon. Friend is right to point out that on a number of occasions, both in written and oral questions, I have raised my concerns about the human rights regime in Bahrain. I did that in opposition and it is natural and important that what we have said in opposition should colour and shape our policies in government. Let me therefore give the first commitment to my hon. Friend: there will be continuity in terms of the values and approach that we adopt. I remind my hon. Friend that in his speech on 12 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that this Government value an ethical dimension in their foreign policy and that we shall give substantial priority to human rights and try to pursue that agenda through international forums, bilateral relationships and other means available to us. In relation specifically to Bahrain, I have already had the opportunity to meet the Bahraini ambassador. My hon. Friend referred to one or two items already in my diary and I suspect that he may have some predictions as to future meetings. I took the opportunity of that meeting to raise our concern about human rights. I stressed a number of issues. Our discussion was frank and the atmosphere was one in which it was possible for me to engage in a constructive dialogue, which I was keen to do. I welcomed recent visits to Bahrain by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but I also strongly emphasised to the Bahraini ambassador that transparency in human rights is crucial. I emphasised the need for Amnesty International or any similar organisation to be involved in monitoring the situation closely. I shall continue to take up that commitment and I have suggested to the ambassador that it might be a sensible approach for him and his Government to get in touch with Amnesty International. I give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend and to others who have taken a keen interest in the matter that when we feel that there is a need to address these issues with the Bahraini authorities we shall not hesitate to do so constructively. I will talk about our overall approach in relation to human rights, but I can say to my hon. Friend that our commitments are clear and our style and approach will be clear, not just on this issue, but on others as well. Last week, when I was in the middle east, I was asked about the Government's approach to human rights. I said at that stage that our approach would not be a la carte: it is a universal principle that we are trying to promote and we will promote it in each case and take each opportunity. May I raise one issue that I thought my hon. Friend might raise and did not? As he knows, there has been much publicity with regard to the treatment received by Sheikh Abdul Amir Al Jamri, a senior Shia cleric and spiritual leader who has remained in detention in Bahrain since January 1996. The Government of Bahrain have always stated that allegations such as those about the lack of family visits and the sheikh's maltreatment were unfounded. In my recent meetings with the Bahraini ambassador, I addressed that question. I have been assured that Al Jamri was in good health, that there was access to medical attention whenever he needed it and that he was visited by his family on a regular basis. This is an area on which I pressed for openness and transparency because the best way for the Bahraini authorities to remove fears about Al Jamri and others is to have independent international monitoring of the human rights regime. Amnesty International or any other organisation with a similar reputation could play a valuable part in that. My hon. Friend raised some important specific issues and I shall try to address the six main points raised in his speech. I can assure my hon. Friend that the asylum applications are under consideration. Naturally, they are confidential between the parties concerned. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of the views expressed by my hon. Friend. There was also the question whether defence equipment exports would be used in internal repression in Bahrain. I remind the House that on 22 May my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the initiation of an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in licence applications for the export of conventional weapons. New criteria will be made available to the House as soon as that review is completed. We will then look closely at any evidence that British companies within our jurisdiction may be involved in supplying materials or expertise for the purposes of torture or any other human rights violations. I give my hon. Friend that clear commitment. That clear commitment applies also to the points that my hon. Friend made about the article in The Guardianon 13 May. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the specific allegations, simply because we do not have the material on those allegations. However, if my hon. Friend or anyone else is able to provide that material, we will look into the points made. We shall certainly investigate the matter further on the basis of the article in The Guardian. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be writing to him in the near future with our response to the points made. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the safety of Bahraini exiles in the United Kingdom. Over the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to meet some of the Bahraini exiles and some of those leading the Bahraini opposition. I share my hon. Friend's view that those responsible for the opposition in this country are moderate people with a moderate set of demands. Therefore, we would be concerned about the safety of any individual exile. We would view with the utmost concern any suggestion of a specific threat against anyone in the United Kingdom. Where specific complaints are brought to our attention or to the attention of any hon. Member, we will investigate them further. If there is any specific evidence in that respect, we will pursue the matter. We will give the utmost priority to the safety of those in exile here. My hon. Friend referred to the state security court. One of the points that we have already stressed and will continue to stress to the Bahraini authorities is the need for due process of law in all criminal cases. That is an important element in any human rights regime and we shall continue to make that argument. My hon. Friend referred in some detail to the case of Mr. Ian Henderson and made a number of disturbing allegations in relation to the activities of Mr. Henderson. If those allegations are true, they would be viewed with great concern and dismay by Her Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend talked about the possibility of legal action being taken against Mr. Henderson on his return. That is a matter for others. However, I wish to make it clear that the Government would take a strong negative view of any action along the lines suggested in relation to Mr. Henderson. We deplore those actions if the allegations are true. In the two minutes remaining to me, I want to consider Bahrain and the human rights points raised by my hon. Friend within the context of a more general view of the Government's principles and the way in which we intend to promote human rights. This country is entering a new period of foreign policy. Wherever I have travelled, and with whomsoever I have engaged in debate, there has been a tremendous interest in the Foreign Secretary's remark that there should be an ethical dimension to foreign policy. That involves important tactical questions about how we pursue that ethical dimension. In the vast majority of cases, we will strive for a constructive engagement. We will do that with Bahrain. Putting it crudely, there are sticks and carrots and there are difficult tactical choices to be made. We will engage with Bahrain over a range of commercial, political and regional issues. That was the policy of the previous Government and we intend to continue it. Within that framework of engagement, we are keen to ensure that, as an important agenda item, there will be discussion of human rights. We have had a short but important debate tonight. It has been the first opportunity for this Government to talk about the new ethical dimension in foreign policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that there is a difference and that there are changes. I have attempted, in a way that I have not always noticed in Adjournment debates, to answer the specific questions raised—

George Galloway (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

It has never happened before.

Derek Fatchett (Labour, Leeds Central)

Indeed, it may never have happened before. I hope that, in that sense, I have set two precedents—the moral dimension to foreign policy and answering questions in an Adjournment debate.